Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37775710›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2024

Delayed memory for complex visual stimuli does not benefit from distraction during encoding.

Lea M Bartsch, Philipp Musfeld

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Lea M BartschDepartment of Psychology, Cognitive Psychology Unit, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. l.bartsch@psychologie.uzh.ch.ORCID 0000-0001-7640-9193
Philipp MusfeldDepartment of Psychology, Cognitive Psychology Unit, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The covert retrieval model (McCabe, Journal of Memory and Language 58(2), 480-494, 2008) postulates that delayed memory performance is enhanced when the encoding of memoranda in working memory (WM) is interrupted by distraction. When subjects are asked to remember stimuli for an immediate memory test, they usually remember them better when the items are presented without distraction, compared to a condition in which a distraction occurs following each item. In a delayed memory test, this effect has been shown to be reversed: Memory performance is better for items followed by distraction than without. Yet, this so-called McCabe effect has not been consistently replicated in the past. In an extensive replication attempt of a previous study showing the effect for complex visual stimuli, we investigated five potential boundary conditions of the predictions of the covert retrieval model: (1) Type of Stimuli (doors vs. faces), (2) type of distractor (pictures vs. math equations), (3) expectation about task difficulty (mixed vs. blocked lists), (4) memory load in WM (small vs. large), and (5) expectation about the long-term memory (LTM) test (intentional vs. incidental encoding). Across four experiments we failed to replicate the original findings and show that delayed memory for faces and other complex visual stimuli does not benefit from covert retrieval during encoding - as suggested as being induced by distractors. Our results indicate that the transfer of information from WM to LTM does not seem to be influenced by covert retrieval processes, but rather that a fixed proportion of information is laid down as a more permanent trace.

Indexed as

AttentionMemory, Short-TermMental RecallPattern Recognition, VisualAdultFacial RecognitionFemaleHumansMaleMemory, Long-TermYoung AdultCovert retrievalLong-term memoryMcCabe effectWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID37775710
PMCPMC11588953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.