ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024
Not fully remembered, but not forgotten: interfering sounds worsen but do not eliminate the representation of pitch in working memory.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Echoes from Sensory Entrainment in Auditory Working Memory for Pitch.Brain sciences · 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
Recent research has begun measuring auditory working memory with a continuous adjustment task in which listeners adjust attributes of a sound to match a stimulus presented earlier. This approach captures auditory memory's continuous nature better than standard change detection paradigms that collect binary ("same or different") memory measurements. In two experiments, we assessed the impact of different interference stimuli (multitone complexes vs. white noise vs. silence) on the precision and accuracy of participants' reproductions of pitch from memory. Participants were presented with a target multitone complex stimulus followed by eight successive interference signals. Across trials, these signals alternated between additional multitone complexes, randomly generated white noise samples, or (in Experiment 2) silence. This was followed by a response period where participants adjusted the pitch of a response stimulus using a MIDI touchpad to match the target. Experiment 1 found a significant effect of interference type on performance, with tone interference signals producing the greatest impairments to participants' accuracy and precision compared to white noise. Interestingly, it also found a compression in the participants' responses, with overestimations of low-frequency targets and underestimations for high-frequency targets. Experiment 2 replicated results from Experiment 1, with an additional silence condition showing the best performance, suggesting that non-tonal signals also generate interference. In general, results support a shared resource model of working memory with a limited capacity that can be flexibly allocated to hold items in memory with varying levels of fidelity. Interference does not appear to knock items out of a fixed precision slot, but rather robs a portion of capacity from stored items.
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.