ArticleCognition2025
Object- and feature-based working memory limits for pairs of complex objects and their development during the school years.
Article in Cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A key question in the development of working memory is whether children's capacity increases in the number of objects or features. Prior research (Forsberg et al., 2022) indicated that object-based capacity limits predominate, with relatively small improvements in feature retention. However, the procedure in that study included only two features per object, aside from location. In contrast, we tested memory for pairs of four-featured objects with children aged 8-9 years or 10-12 years and young adults (total N = 101). Quantitative modeling of the results showed that feature richness plays a much larger role in working memory development than previously thought. Each object was a stylized arrow with a color, an orientation, an emblem on the arrowhead, and a shape of the stalk of the arrow, an analogy to many real-world objects (e.g., a shirt with a color, current orientation, pocket emblem, and shape of the shirt tail). The analyses separated errors due to attention lapses in which an object was not encoded and errors due to incomplete retention of features within an object. Our findings suggest a two-step model of working memory encoding in which objects are first encoded (with some lapses or unencoded objects), followed by encoding of the multiple features of these objects independently. With these feature-rich stimuli, we showed feature encoding to be a major source of developmental improvement, along with object encoding. These findings challenge prior assumptions and provide new insights into how working memory for realistic, complex objects may develop.
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.