Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39256260›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024

Individual differences in working memory capacity and temporal preparation: A secondary reanalysis.

Matthew S Welhaf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Matthew S WelhafDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, CB 1125 One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4899, USA. wmatt@wustl.edu.

Funding

AGING AND DEVELOPMENTT32AG000030 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI DENISE HEAD, Jeffrey M Zacks · 1985 to 2026
$9.7M
NIA NIH HHS T32 AG000030
6 · The paper itself

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

IndividualityMemory, Short-TermReaction TimeAdultAttentionFemaleHumansMalePsychomotor PerformanceTime PerceptionYoung AdultForeperiod effectsReaction timeTemporal preparationWorking memory capacity

Identifiers

PMID39256260
PMCPMC12621145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.