Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40660049›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2025

Reduced relational and item-specific processing in cognitive offloading.

Hagit Magen, Michal Tomer-Offen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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

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

2 authors.

Hagit MagenThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. msmagen@mail.huji.ac.il.ORCID 0000-0003-4991-923X
Michal Tomer-OffenThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many circumstances in everyday life, individuals offload information to external stores (e.g., shopping lists) to compensate for limitations in internal memory. When saving information externally, individuals tend to refrain from actively encoding an additional internal copy of the information, leading to a weakening of its internal trace. This study examined whether the loss of the internal trace due to offloading is limited to item-specific information (e.g., apples, milk) or extends to relational information as well (e.g., fruit, dairy products). In the first two blocks of each of two experiments, participants learned lists of 20 unrelated words, which they could save externally for use during a subsequent memory test. In the third block, participants learned a categorized list consisting of 6 exemplars from 8 semantic categories. While participants could save the list externally, they were prevented access to the list at test. Half of the participants were informed that the list would be unavailable at test, thus relying on internal memory, whereas the remaining participants trusted the list availability. Reliance on the external store led to a reduction in the internal trace of the offloaded information. Notably, saving the information externally resulted in decreased internal memory for both item-specific and relational information. This study indicates that internal memory for relational information does not effectively support the retrieval of information from external stores, and suggests that optimal organization of external stores should highlight relational information.

Indexed as

CognitionMemoryMental RecallAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultCognitive offloadingDistinctiveness theoryItem-specific processingMemoryRelational processing

Identifiers

PMID40660049
PMCPMC12260133

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.