Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30811028›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2019

Charting the trajectory of forgetting: Insights from a working memory period paradigm.

John N Towse, Graham J Hitch, Neil Horton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

John N TowseLancaster University, Lancaster, UK. j.towse@lancaster.ac.uk.
Graham J HitchUniversity of York, York, UK.
Neil HortonLancaster University, Lancaster, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory capacity is commonly measured in terms of its item span, and much less often in terms of its time span, or "period." The former measures how many items can be stored in working memory when carrying out episodes of concurrent processing. The latter complements this by determining the duration of processing episodes that can be tolerated while successfully storing a fixed number of items. We investigated the generality of previous evidence that working memory period varies with the distribution of longer and shorter processing episodes within a trial, and that notwithstanding such differences, a global measure of period is a reliable predictor of children's educational attainment. We describe data from 184 children, between 7 and 11 years of age, who completed variants of an operation period task with different distributions of processing episodes together with measures of scholastic attainment. Individual differences in period scores were consistent over two test sessions, and were predictive of reading and number skills. We replicated previous effects of the order of longer and shorter processing episodes, but found that they did not generalize fully to other manipulations of order. The results point to the contribution of subtle within-trial sequence configurations for working memory. We make the case for a broader view of what constrains working memory than exists in current models.

Indexed as

Academic SuccessChildFemaleHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermMental RecallSchoolsSerial LearningStudentsTime FactorsForgetting rateIndividual differencesOperation periodWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID30811028
PMCPMC6677677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.