ArticleMemory & cognition2024
Active maintenance in working memory reinforces bindings for future retrieval from episodic long-term memory.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Forget For Now, but Remember Later: Can People Selectively Remove Information From Working Memory While Keeping it in Long-Term Memory?Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Delayed memory for complex visual stimuli does not benefit from distraction during encoding.Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- Does value-based prioritization at working memory enhance long-term memory?Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- To be or not to be relevant: Comparing short- and long-term consequences across working memory prioritization procedures.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
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
Abstract
Many theories assume that actively maintaining information in working memory (WM) predicts its retention in episodic long-term memory (LTM), as revealed by the beneficial effects of more WM time. In four experiments, we examined whether affording more time for intentional WM maintenance does indeed drive LTM. Sequences of four words were presented during trials of simple span (short time), slow span (long time), and complex span (long time with distraction; Experiments 1-2). Long time intervals entailed a pause of equivalent duration between the words that presented a blank screen (slow span) or an arithmetic problem to read aloud and solve (complex span). In Experiments 1-3, participants either serially recalled the words (intentional encoding) or completed a no-recall task (incidental encoding). In Experiment 4, all participants were instructed to intentionally encode the words, with the trials randomly ending in the serial-recall or no-recall task. To ensure similar processing of the words between encoding groups, participants silently decided whether each word was a living or nonliving thing via key press (i.e., an animacy judgment; Experiments 1 and 3-4) or read the words aloud and then pressed the space bar (Experiment 2). A surprise delayed memory test at the end of the experiment assessed LTM. Applying Bayesian cognitive models to disambiguate binding and item memory revealed consistent benefits of free time to binding memory that were specific to intentional encoding in WM. This suggests that time spent intentionally keeping information in WM is special for LTM because WM is a system that maintains bindings.
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.