ArticleMemory & cognition2020
Differential effects of working memory load on priming and recognition of real images.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of working memory overload on emotional processing and recognition memory: An fNIRS study.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Measuring memory is harder than you think: How to avoid problematic measurement practices in memory research.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several studies have explored the effects of divided attention on priming, but little is known about the impact of working memory load on implicit visual memory. The aim of this study was to determine whether there are differential effects of working memory load on a visual priming task compared to a recognition task. In the encoding phase, participants were presented with real-object pictures and asked to classify them semantically. At retrieval, 40 studied and 40 new images were presented (partially masked) for 100 ms, and participants had to identify the object. Each trial was immediately followed by a recognition test, in which the unmasked image was shown again, and participants had to indicate whether it had been presented at encoding or not. Regarding working memory load, participants performed a task in which a load was imposed in half of the trials. Twenty-four participants concurrently performed an articulatory suppression task, another group of 24 subjects performed an executive demanding task, and a third group of 24 participants performed a spatial tapping task. Working memory load failed to diminish performance on both priming and recognition tests in the articulatory suppression condition. However, the backward counting and the tapping tasks influenced recognition, rather than priming. The relative pattern of backward counting effects on recognition and priming were then broadly replicated in a follow-up experiment using an adapted priming task (N = 24). Results suggest that a concurrent load has a more robust effect on recognition than on priming, especially when the working memory task is executively demanding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32601843What 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.