ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Constraints on multi-item working memory access: performance costs and retrieval dynamics.
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.
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.
- Working memory load and search efficiency in conventional monitor-based 2D versus 3D virtual settings: analysis of response times and parietal induced alpha activity in a modified Sternberg task.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- Limits on selecting multiple items from working memory: the role of context and item competition.Frontiers in cognition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.