Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40271355›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Constraints on multi-item working memory access: performance costs and retrieval dynamics.

Chen Tiferet-Dweck, Abigail Keegan, Kerstin Unger

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Chen Tiferet-Dweck *Department of Psychology, Queens College, City University of New York, New York, NY, United States.
Abigail KeeganDepartment of Psychology, Queens College, City University of New York, New York, NY, United States.
Kerstin Unger *Department of Psychology, Queens College, City University of New York, New York, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To support goal-directed behavior, working memory (WM) must flexibly access relevant information. While the mechanisms underlying single-item WM access are comparatively well-studied, less is known about the principles governing multi-item access. Some studies have suggested that dual-item retrieval can be as efficient as single-item access, but it remains unclear whether this reflects reduced inhibitory demands or truly parallel, cost-free retrieval. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the number of relevant vs. irrelevant items in a pre-and retro-cuing WM task. The rationale was that if reduced inhibitory demands benefit multi-item access, then having fewer irrelevant items to suppress would enhance performance. Instead, we found that selecting two out of three items was slower and less accurate than selecting one, arguing against the idea that diminished inhibition underlies multi-item retrieval efficiency. Experiments 2a and 2b further probed retrieval efficiency using a modified dual-access paradigm that leveraged object repetition benefits. By including a control condition to prevent temporal associations between repeated targets and non-targets, we observed that repetition benefits for each item were additive-consistent with serial or limited parallel retrieval-rather than overadditive, which would be expected under fully parallel, cost-free retrieval. These findings clarify key limitations of multi-item WM, with important implications for complex tasks such as language comprehension, decision-making, and problem solving.

Indexed as

multi-item working memory accessoutput gatingparallel vs. serial working memory retrievalretrocuingworking memory

Identifiers

PMID40271355
PMCPMC12014675

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.