ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024
Individual differences in working memory capacity and temporal preparation: A secondary reanalysis.
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 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.
- Age-related differences in implicit temporal preparation.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- On dueling multi-act arithmetic: exploring the dynamics of goal-driven competition on engagement and cognition.Experimental brain research · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to prepare and maintain an optimal level of preparedness for action, across some unknown duration, is critical for human behavior. Temporal preparation has historically been analyzed in the context of reaction time (RT) experiments where the interval varies between the start of the trial, or foreperiod (FP), and the required response. Two main findings have come out of such paradigms: the variable FP effect (longer RTs to shorter vs. longer FPs) and the sequential FP effect (longer RTs when shorter FPs follow longer FPs). Several theoretical views of these FP effects have been proposed with some suggesting a dissociation while others argue for an implicit process driven by memory traces. One possible method to test these views of FP effects is to examine how individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) moderate such effects. To this end, I reanalyzed data from three studies in which participants completed measures of WMC and a simple RT task with a variable FP. Results suggest that individual differences in WMC were related to the magnitude of the variable FP and the sequential FP effect in two of three individual studies. A "mega-analysis" provided supportive evidence for a relationship between WMC and both forms of FP effects. The present combined experimental-individual differences study provides a novel approach to better understand how and why individuals vary in temporal preparation ability. Through leveraging several large-scale databases unseen in FP research, I provide a new way of understanding FP effects and response timing more generally.
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.