ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition2018
Neural bases of automaticity.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Super rapid learning of new attentional sets.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Neural signatures of automatic letter-speech sound integration in literate adults.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Bi-temporal processing in music notation reading: a theory linking prediction, memory, and automaticity.Frontiers in cognition · 2025Article
- Review
- Object weight can be rapidly predicted, with low cognitive load, by exploiting learned associations between the weights and locations of objects.Journal of neurophysiology · 2023Article
- Effects of smartphone addiction on cognitive function and physical activity in middle-school children: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Medium strength visual long-term memories are the most fragile.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021Article
- What not to look for: Electrophysiological evidence that searchers prefer positive templates.Neuropsychologia · 2020Article
- A model-based quantification of action control deficits in Parkinson's disease.Neuropsychologia · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Automaticity allows us to perform tasks in a fast, efficient, and effortless manner after sufficient practice. Theories of automaticity propose that across practice processing transitions from being controlled by working memory to being controlled by long-term memory retrieval. Recent event-related potential (ERP) studies have sought to test this prediction, however, these experiments did not use the canonical paradigms used to study automaticity. Specifically, automaticity is typically studied using practice regimes with consistent mapping between targets and distractors and spaced practice with individual targets, features that these previous studies lacked. The aim of the present work was to examine whether the practice-induced shift from working memory to long-term memory inferred from subjects' ERPs is observed under the conditions in which automaticity is traditionally studied. We found that to be the case in 3 experiments, firmly supporting the predictions of theories. In addition, we found that the temporal distribution of practice (massed vs. spaced) modulates the shape of learning curves. The ERP data revealed that the switch to long-term memory is slower for spaced than massed practice, suggesting that memory systems are used in a strategic manner. This finding provides new constraints for theories of learning and automaticity. (PsycINFO Database Record
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.