ArticleNeuroImage2021
The role of neural load effects in predicting individual differences in working memory function.
Article in NeuroImage, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fifteen years on: a review of the Cam-CAN study of the cognitive neuroscience of ageing.GeroScience · 2026Review
- Stimulus shapes strategy: Effects of stimulus characteristics and individual differences in academic achievement on the neural mechanisms engaged during the N-back task.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2024Article
- Perception and memory retrieval states are reflected in distributed patterns of background functional connectivity.NeuroImage · 2023Article
- Dorsal striatal response to taste is modified by obesity and insulin resistance.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Studies of working memory (WM) function have tended to adopt either a within-subject approach, focusing on effects of load manipulations, or a between-subjects approach, focusing on individual differences. This dichotomy extends to WM neuroimaging studies, with different neural correlates being identified for within- and between-subjects variation in WM. Here, we examined this issue in a systematic fashion, leveraging the large-sample Human Connectome Project dataset, to conduct a well-powered, whole-brain analysis of the N-back WM task. We first demonstrate the advantages of parcellation schemes for dimension reduction, in terms of load-related effect sizes. This parcel-based approach is then utilized to directly compare the relationship between load-related (within-subject) and behavioral individual differences (between-subject) effects through both correlational and predictive analyses. The results suggest a strong linkage of within-subject and between-subject variation, with larger load-effects linked to stronger brain-behavior correlations. In frontoparietal cortex no hemispheric biases were found towards one type of variation, but the Dorsal Attention Network did exhibit greater sensitivity to between over within-subjects variation, whereas in the Somatomotor network, the reverse pattern was observed. Cross-validated predictive modeling capitalizing on this tight relationship between the two effects indicated greater predictive power for load-activated than load-deactivated parcels, while also demonstrating that load-related effect size can serve as an effective guide to feature (i.e., parcel) selection, in maximizing predictive power while maintaining interpretability. Together, the findings demonstrate an important consistency across within- and between-subjects approaches to identifying the neural substrates of WM, which can be effectively harnessed to develop more powerful predictive models.
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.