ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024
Adaptive forgetting speed in working memory.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mechanisms of Forgetting: A Systematic Review of Neurocognitive and Clinical Determinants.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of Context Changes on Memory Reactivation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Working memory is known to be capacity-limited and is therefore selective not only for what it encodes but also what it forgets. Explicit forgetting cues can be used effectively to free up capacity, but it is not clear how working memory adaptively forgets in the absence of explicit cues. An important implicit cue that may tune forgetting in working memory is the passage of time. When information becomes irrelevant more quickly, working memory should also forget information more quickly. In three delayed-estimation experiments, we systematically manipulated how probing probability changed as time passed on after encoding an item (i.e., the "probing hazard"). In some blocks, probing hazard decreased after encoding an item, requiring participants to only briefly retain the memory item. In other blocks, the probing hazard increased or stayed flat, as the retention interval was lengthened. In line with our hypothesis, we found that participants adapted their forgetting rate to the probing dynamics of the working memory task. When the memory item quickly became irrelevant ("decreasing" probing hazard), forgetting rate was higher than in blocks where probing hazard increased or stayed flat. The time course of these adaptations in forgetting implies a fast and flexible mechanism. Interestingly, participants could not explicitly report the order of conditions, suggesting forgetting is implicitly sped up. These findings suggest that implicit adaptations to the temporal structure of our environment tune forgetting speed in working memory, possibly contributing to the flexible allocation of limited working memory resources.
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.