Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39621247›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2025

The effect of instructed refreshing on working memory: Is the memory boost a function of refreshing frequency or refreshing duration?

Evie Vergauwe, Alessandra S Souza, Naomi Langerock, Klaus Oberauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Evie VergauweFaculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l'Education, Université de Genève, 40 Bd du Pont d'Arve, 1211, Geneva 4, Switzerland. Evie.Vergauwe@unige.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-7339-2370
Alessandra S SouzaDepartment of Psychology, University of Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Naomi LangerockFaculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l'Education, Université de Genève, 40 Bd du Pont d'Arve, 1211, Geneva 4, Switzerland.
Klaus OberauerDepartment of Psychology, University of Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Refreshing is assumed to reactivate the contents of working memory in an attention-based way, resulting in a boost of the attended representations and hence improving their subsequent memory. Here, we examined whether the refreshing-induced memory boost is a constant or a gradual, time-dependent phenomenon. If the beneficial effect of refreshing on memory performance is due to the information being selected for refreshing (i.e., selection hypothesis), a constant memory boost is expected to occur each time an item is selected for refreshing, with better memory performance for items that are selected more often. If, however, the beneficial effect of refreshing on memory performance is due to spending time in the focus of attention during refreshing (i.e., duration hypothesis), a gradual memory boost is expected, with the size of the memory boost being a direct function of how long the item has been the object of focused attention. To distinguish between these hypotheses, we instructed and guided the use of refreshing during retention through the presentation of cues, and varied the number of refreshing steps and their duration independently. The number of refreshing steps, but not their duration, had an effect on recall, in agreement with the selection hypothesis. However, some of the results were less robust than anticipated, indicating that the effect of instructed refreshing is limited to certain task parameters.

Indexed as

AttentionMemory, Short-TermAdultCuesFemaleHumansMaleTime FactorsYoung AdultFocus of attentionRefreshingWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID39621247
PMCPMC12307513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.