ArticleBiomedicines2024
Aging's Effect on Working Memory-Modality Comparison.
Article in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive Abilities and Listening Effort in Individuals with Vestibular Migraine.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2025Article
- Non-Verbal Working Memory in Post-Stroke Motor Aphasia: A Pilot Study Using the Tactual Span.Neurology international · 2025Article
- Aging Processes of Working Memory in Different Modalities.Neurology international · 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
Research exploring the impact of development and aging on working memory (WM) has primarily concentrated on visual and verbal domains, with limited attention paid to the tactile modality. The current study sought to evaluate WM encompassing storage and manipulation across these three modalities, spanning from childhood to old age. The study included 134 participants, divided into four age groups: 7-8, 11-12, 25-35, and 60-69. Each participant completed the Visuospatial Span, Digit Span, and Tactual Span, with forward and backward recall. The findings demonstrated a consistent trend in both forward and backward stages. Performance improved until young adulthood, progressively diminishing with advancing age. In the forward stage, the Tactual Span performance was worse than that of the Digit and Visuospatial Span for all participants. In the backward stage, the Visuospatial Span outperformed the Digit and Tactual Span across all age groups. Furthermore, the Tactual Span backward recall exhibited significantly poorer performance than the other modalities, primarily in the youngest and oldest age groups. In conclusion, age impacts WM differently across modalities, with tactile storage capacity being the most vulnerable. Additionally, tactile manipulation skills develop later in childhood but deteriorate sooner in adulthood, indicating a distinct component within tactile WM.
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.