ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science2022
Proactive interference and the development of working memory.
Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do semantic and phonological categories lead to proactive interference in immediate and delayed serial recall tasks?Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Beyond Working Memory Capacity: Attention Control as the Underlying Mechanism of Cognitive Abilities.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Review
- Does cognitive inhibition contribute to working memory and reasoning during childhood?Psychological research · 2024Article
- The resolution of proactive interference in a novel visual working memory task: A behavioral and pupillometric study.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Can't get it out of my head: Proactive interference in the visual working memory of 3- to 8-year-old children.Developmental psychology · 2024Article
- Neuronal microstructural changes in the human brain are associated with neurocognitive aging.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Working memory (WM), the ability to maintain information in service to a task, is characterized by its limited capacity. Several influential models attribute this limitation in a large extent to proactive interference (PI), the phenomenon that previously encoded, now-irrelevant information competes with relevant information. Here, we look back at the adult PI literature, spanning over 60 years, as well as recent results linking the ability to cope with PI to WM capacity. In early development, WM capacity is even more limited, yet an accounting for the role of PI has been lacking. Our Focus Article aims to address this through an integrative account: since PI resolution is mediated by networks involving the frontal cortex (particularly, the left inferior frontal gyrus) and the posterior parietal cortex, and since children have protracted development and less recruitment of these areas, the increase in the ability to cope with PI is a major factor underlying the increase in WM capacity in early development. Given this, we suggest that future research should focus on mechanistic studies of PI resolution in children. Finally, we note a crucial methodological implication: typical WM paradigms repeat stimuli from trial-to-trial, facilitating, inadvertently, PI and reducing performance; we may be fundamentally underestimating children's WM capacity. This article is categorized under: Psychology > Memory Neuroscience > Cognition Neuroscience > Development.
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.