ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Working memory updating for free items and for item-to-context bindings: When attention is enough and when gating is needed.
Article in Memory & 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A well-supported working memory (WM) model holds that a "gate" separates the content of WM from information that does not need to be maintained or manipulated. Previous research suggests that switching between opening and closing this gate incurs a response-time cost, reflecting controlled cognitive effort. However, the exact nature of this cost remains debated. Some studies find that closing the gate is more costly than opening it, while in other studies these costs are comparable. Using an intertrial interval manipulation in the reference-back paradigm, we show that the larger cost of gate-closing is not an intrinsic feature of WM control, but is instead influenced by the automatic retention and removal of stimulus- and response-related information in WM. This finding indicates that WM is automatically but transiently updated with information for which attention-consuming processes such as response selection take place, challenging the prevailing view that WM updating is always effortful and controlled. Crucially, our findings reveal that updating individual items occurs rapidly and automatically when a single item is maintained. In contrast, updating bindings between items and their context is a slower, effortful process that requires gating. These results reconcile conflicting views regarding the nature of working memory encoding and updating.
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.