ArticleRevista de neurologia2020
Visual working memory for semantically related objects in healthy adults.
Article in Revista de neurologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Virtual reality applications based on instrumental activities of daily living (iADLs) for cognitive intervention in older adults: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence approaches for early detection of neurocognitive disorders among older adults.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2024Article
- Cognitive Outcomes in Autosomal-Dominant Alzheimer's Disease: A Comprehensive Review from a Colombian Kindred with the Presenilin-1 E280A Mutation.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2024Review
- Memory for Semantically Related Objects Differentiates Cognitively Unimpaired Autosomal Dominant Mutation Carriers from Non-Carrier Family Members.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2023Article
- A cultural approach to dementia - insights from US Latino and other minoritized groups.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFew studies have examined how manipulating the semantic relationship between objects impacts visual working memory accuracy or reaction time.
aimTo characterize how the semantic relatedness of visual objects impacts working memory accuracy and reaction time in healthy adults using a newly developed mobile-tablet cognitive task. SUBJECTS AND
methodsA delayed matching to sample paradigm on the tablet task was studied in a sample of 76 community-dwelling adult participants from Spain and Colombia. The tablet task included 80 unique sets of either four or six semantically related or semantically unrelated objects. The accuracy and reaction time of the participants on the task were recorded for analysis.
resultsWhen objects were semantically related, reaction time was greater in the six object sets relative to the four object sets. Age was positively associated with reaction time, but not accuracy across all four task conditions. Participants with fewer years of formal education than the sample median (16 years) exhibited worse response accuracy and slower reaction time on both the four and six semantically related conditions relative to participants with 16 or more years of formal education.
conclusionsFindings from this study suggest that when objects are semantically related (versus unrelated) and object load is increased, more processing time is needed to determine whether an object was or was not in the encoded set. The results also suggest that greater educational attainment -which likely relates with greater exposure to more technologies- is related with faster and more accurate responses on some task conditions.
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.