ArticleJournal of memory and language2025
Individual differences in prospective and retrospective memory offloading.
Article in Journal of memory and language, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Between Alarms and Scheduling: The Effect of Cognitive Offloading on Prospective and Retrospective Memory.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From internal timing to external clock-checking: the impact of ego depletion on dual-path attention in TBPM and the precise remediation by reminders.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Ecological momentary assessments of cognitive performance are more variable in breast cancer survivors.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- The role of short-term memory, type of practice and metacognitive judgments in predicting cognitive offloading.Frontiers in cognition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prior research focused on the relationship between cognitive offloading and working memory ability in the prospective and retrospective memory domains have produced conflicting results. Specifically, past work in the prospective memory domain has found that individuals with lower working memory capacity (WMC) choose to offload more often and benefit more from offloading than those with higher WMC (Ball, Peper, et al., 2022) while work in the retrospective memory domain has not found a relationship between WMC and the use of or benefit from offloading (Morrison & Richmond, 2020). However, task design across studies differed in several other respects aside from memory domain, making it difficult to discern whether different mechanisms underlie cognitive offloading across domains. The current study aimed to address these discrepancies by introducing similar procedures across offloading tasks. Results revealed that when offloading was required or permitted, participants with varying levels of WMC generally performed more similarly to one another than when the task had to be completed using internal memory alone. In addition, participants with lower WMC generally benefitted more from offloading, particularly under high memory load, compared to those with higher WMC when offloading was required and when participants had free choice about whether and when to engage in offloading. However, neither metacognitive underconfidence in internal memory capability nor lower WMC estimates were associated with increased offloading frequency in either memory domain when participants were permitted to offload. Practical and theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.
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.