ArticleBMC psychology2025
Semantic relationships among objects reduce the attention required for inter-item binding in working memory.
Article in BMC psychology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious research has found that inter-item binding in working memory requires more executive attention than single items, and since intra-item binding in working memory requires more object-based attention to maintain than its constituent elements, it is possible that inter-item binding may also need more object-based attention than single items. Additionally, studies have found that semantic relationships between items in working memory help to facilitate working memory, but the mechanisms by which these semantic relationships enhance working memory are not clear. This study examines whether the semantic relationships between items in working memory can reduce the attentional resources required for inter-item binding.
methodsDuring working memory task, participants were presented with memory items that either had or lacked semantic associations, and were required to complete an executive attention-consuming backward counting task or an object-based attention-consuming Duncan task while performing the working memory task.
resultsExperiment 1 revealed that for non-semantic pairs, the high-load backward counting task caused significantly greater impairment to inter-item binding than to single items (t(23) = 3.47, p =.002, d = 0.71, BF₁₀ = 15.39). For semantically related pairs, Bayesian evidence strongly supported the null hypothesis of no differential executive attention cost between binding and single-item conditions (p =.787, d = 0.06, BF₁₀ = 0.22). Experiment 2 showed a parallel but weaker pattern for object-based attention: non-semantic pairs exhibited higher binding costs under the Duncan task (t(23) = 3.41, p =.002, d = 0.70, BF₁₀ = 17.27), whereas semantic pairs showed only partial attenuation of these costs (p =.123, d = 0.33, BF₁₀ = 0.59).
conclusionSemantic relationships between items primarily alleviate executive attention required for inter-item binding maintenance and moderately reduced but did not fully eliminate the object-based attention demands.
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.