ArticleCognition2021
Refreshing and removing items in working memory: Different approaches to equivalent processes?
Article in Cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does Attending to Information in Working Memory Improve Long-Term Memory?Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Putting the "Return" Back in the Inhibition of Return Effect in Working Memory.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
- Decoding the content of working memory in school-aged children.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Are irrelevant items actively deleted from visual working memory?: No evidence from repulsion and attraction effects in dual-retrocue tasks.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- A (further) test of spontaneous serial refreshing in verbal and spatial working memory.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Inhibition-of-return-like effects in working memory? A preregistered replication study of JohnsonRoyal Society open science · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Researchers have investigated "refreshing" of items in working memory (WM) as a means of preserving them, while concurrently, other studies have examined "removal" of items from WM that are irrelevant. However, it is unclear whether refreshing and removal in WM truly represent different processes, or if participants, in an effort to avoid the to-be-removed items, simply refresh alternative items. We conducted two experiments to test whether these putative processes can be distinguished from one another. Participants were presented with sets of three words and then cued to either refresh one item or remove two items from WM, followed by a lexical decision probe containing either one of the just-seen words or a non-word. In Experiment 1, all probes were valid and in Experiment 2, probes were occasionally invalid (the probed word was one of the removed/non-refreshed items). In both experiments, participants also received a subsequent surprise long-term memory test. Results from both experiments suggested the expected advantages for refreshed (or non-removed) items in both short-term response time and long-term recognition, but no differences between refresh and remove instructions that would suggest a fundamental difference in processes. Thus, we argue that a functional distinction between refreshing and removal may not be necessary and propose that both of these putative processes could potentially be subsumed under an overarching conceptual perspective based on the flexible reallocation of mental or reflective attention.
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.