Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36224462›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2023

How can caching explain automaticity?

Nir Fresco, Joseph Tzelgov, Lior Shmuelof

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Motor automaticity in natural keyboard typing.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

3 authors.

Nir FrescoDepartments of Cognitive and Brain Sciences and Philosophy, Epistemology & Cognition Lab, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, 8410501, Beer-Sheva, Israel. nfresco@bgu.ac.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7182-9727
Joseph TzelgovDepartments of Cognitive and Brain Sciences and Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, 8410501, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Lior ShmuelofDepartment of Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Brain and Action Lab, Adi-Negev BGU Translational Neurorehabilitation Lab, Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, 8410501, Be'er Sheva, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automaticity is still ill-understood, and its relation to habit formation and skill acquisition is highly debated. Recently, the principle of caching has been advanced as a potentially promising avenue for studying automaticity. It is roughly understood as a means of storing direct input-output associations in a manner that supports instant lookup. We raise various concerns that should be addressed before the theoretical progress afforded by this principle can be evaluated. Is caching merely a metaphor for computer caching or is it a computational model that can be used to derive testable predictions? How do the short-term and long-term effects of automaticity relate to the distinction between working memory and long-term memory? Does caching apply to stimulus-response associations - as already suggested by Logan's instance theory - or to algorithms, too? How much practice is required for caching and how does caching depend on the task's type? What is the relation between control processes and caching as these pertain to the possible suppression of automatic processes? Dealing with these questions will arguably also advance our understanding of automaticity.

Indexed as

Memory, Long-TermMemory, Short-TermHumansAutomaticityComputer cachingMotor controlSkill acquisitionSkill learning and automaticity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.