ArticleMemory & cognition2024
Delayed memory for complex visual stimuli does not benefit from distraction during encoding.
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.
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.
- Long-term effects of working memory retrieval from prioritized and deprioritized states.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Processing in working memory boosts long-term memory representations and their retrieval.Communications psychology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.