Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32849144›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2020

Working Memory as an Indicator for Comparative Cognition - Detecting Qualitative and Quantitative Differences.

Lukas Alexander Hahn, Jonas Rose

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. One Biology and the Status of Humans.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  2. A 108-h total sleep deprivation did not impair fur seal performance in delayed matching to sample task.Journal of comparative physiology. B, Biochemical, systemic, and environmental physiology · 2024
    Article
  3. Why birds are smart.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lukas Alexander HahnNeural Basis of Learning, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Jonas RoseNeural Basis of Learning, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Ruhr University Bochum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory (WM), the representation of information held accessible for manipulation over time, is an essential component of all higher cognitive abilities. It allows for complex behaviors that go beyond simple stimulus-response associations and inflexible behavioral patterns. WM capacity determines how many different pieces of information (items) can be used for these cognitive processes, and in humans, it correlates with fluid intelligence. As such, WM might be a useful tool for comparison of cognition across species. WM can be tested using comparatively simple behavioral protocols, based on operant conditioning, in a multitude of different species. Species-specific contextual variables that influence an animal's performance on a non-cognitive level are controlled by adapting the WM paradigm. The neuronal mechanisms by which WM emerges in the brain, as sustained neuronal activity, are comparable between the different species studied (mammals and birds), as are the areas of the brain in which WM activity can be measured. Thus WM is comparable between vastly different species within their respective niches, accounting for specific contextual variables and unique adaptations. By approaching the question of "general cognitive abilities" or "intelligence" within the animal kingdom from the perspective of WM, the complexity of the core question at hand is reduced to a fundamental memory system required to allow for complex cognitive abilities. This article argues that measuring WM can be a suitable addition to the toolkit of comparative cognition. By measuring WM on a behavioral level and going beyond behavior to the underlying physiological processes, qualitative and quantitative differences in cognition between different animal species can be identified, free of contextual restraints.

Indexed as

comparative cognitionMacphailmodels of working memorynull-hypothesisquantifying cognition

Identifiers

PMID32849144
PMCPMC7424011
OpenAlexW3049615595

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.