Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33984741›Full record

ArticleCognition2021

Impact of processing demands at encoding, maintenance and retrieval in visual working memory.

Younes Adam Tabi, Maria Raquel Maio, Sean James Fallon, Robert Udale, Shannon Dickson, Mohamad Imran Idris, Lisa Nobis, Sanjay G Manohar, Masud Husain

Open access · hybridAbstract 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Younes Adam TabiNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK; Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: younes.tabi@ndcn.ox.ac.uk.
Maria Raquel MaioNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK; Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sean James FallonDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Robert UdaleDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Shannon DicksonDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mohamad Imran IdrisNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Lisa NobisDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sanjay G ManoharNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK; Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Masud HusainNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK; Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK; Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBOxford BioMedica (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 206330/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been surprisingly little examination of how recall performance is affected by processing demands induced by retrieval cues, how manipulations at encoding interact with processing demands during maintenance or due to the retrieval cue, and how these are affected with aging. Here, we investigate these relationships by examining the fidelity of working memory recall across two delayed reproduction tasks with a continuous measure of report across the adult lifespan. Participants were asked to remember and subsequently reproduce from memory the identity and location of a probed item from the encoding display. In Experiment 1, we examined the effect of filtering irrelevant information at encoding and the impact of filtering distracting information at retrieval simultaneously. In Experiment 2, we tested how ignoring distracting information during maintenance or updating current contents with new information during this period affects recall. The results reveal that manipulating processing requirements induced by retrieval cues (by altering the nature of the retrieval foil) had a significant impact on memory recall: the presence of two previously viewed features from the encoding display in the retrieval foil led to a decrease in identification accuracy. Although irrelevant information can be filtered out well at encoding, both ignoring irrelevant information and updating the contents of memory during the maintenance delay had a detrimental effect on recall. These effects were similar across the lifespan, but older individuals were particularly affected by manipulations of processing demands at encoding as well as increasing set size of information to be retained in memory. Finally, analyses revealed that there were no systematic relationships between filtering performance at encoding, maintenance and retrieval suggesting that these processing demands are independent of each other. Rather than filtering being a single, monolithic entity, the data suggest that it is better accounted for as distinctly dissociable cognitive processes that engage and articulate with different phases of working memory.

Indexed as

Memory, Short-TermMental RecallAdultAgingCuesHumansAgingFilteringMemory capacityMisbindingProcessing demands

Identifiers

PMID33984741
PMCPMC8346950
OpenAlexW3160293928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.