Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33756245›Full record

ArticleCognition2021

Refreshing and removing items in working memory: Different approaches to equivalent processes?

Evan N Lintz, Matthew R Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Decoding the content of working memory in school-aged children.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  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.

Evan N LintzDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, United States of America. Electronic address: evan.lintz@huskers.unl.edu.
Matthew R JohnsonDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, United States of America.

Funding

Testing the Efficacy of Ibudilast to Attenuate Meth-seeking and Associated Synaptic Inflammation at the Synapse (TEAMS)P20GM130461 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN · PI SCOTT BARRETT · 2019 to 2026
$20.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM130461
6 · The paper itself

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

Memory, Short-TermMental RecallAttentionCuesHumansReaction TimeAttentionDirected forgettingDirected rememberingRefreshingRemovalWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID33756245
PMCPMC8058312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.