ReviewVision (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Systematic Review of the Longitudinal Sensitivity of Precision Tasks in Visual Working Memory.
Review in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can transcranial direct current stimulation combined with interactive computerized cognitive training boost cognition and gait performance in older adults with mild cognitive impairment? a randomized controlled trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Trial
- The neurocognitive mechanism linking temperature and humidity with miners' working memory: an fNIRS study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Precision of working memory (WM) refers to the objective performance of individuals when trying to recall the features of the encoded WM items. Studies of precision in VWM aim to identify whether differences in WM performance within individuals are sensitive to individual states or traits. In this systematic review, we study VWM precision and whether it reflects true differences in ability to accurately store information, and thereby possibly a more sensitive measure than discrete VWM span alone. Sifting through 327 abstracts, we identified 34 relevant articles. After assessing these articles with regard to our inclusion criteria to test participants at two separate time points and have a sample size of at least fifteen participants, we found four longitudinal studies regarding VWM precision. One review author and two reviewers independently assessed all studies in the screening and selection process and extracted outcome measures, study characteristics, and, when possible, test-retest reliability metrics. Given the small and heterogeneous sample, this systematic review could not yet provide conclusive evidence on the sensitivity of VWM precision paradigms. Future research of VWM should include longitudinal studies of precision, and address both test-retest reliability in healthy adults and changes in precision during key developmental trajectory periods and in clinical populations.
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.