Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40846824›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025

Retrieval from long-term memory does not bypass working memory.

Michael K P Mugno, Timothy J Vickery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Michael K P MugnoDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA. mmugno@udel.edu.
Timothy J VickeryDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA.

Funding

Vivarium CoreP30GM145765 · NIGMS · DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI MELISSA A HARRINGTON · 2022 to 2026
$7.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS 5P30GM145765-03NIGMS NIH HHS P30 GM145765
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Information retrieved from long-term memory (LTM) enters working memory (WM), and the amount of information that can be retrieved is constrained to the limits of WM (about three to four items; Fukuda & Woodman, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (20), 5306-5311, 2017). Can LTM retrieval occur when WM is near capacity, without consequence to either the retrieved or the maintained information? Liu, Li, Theeuwes, and Wang (NeuroImage, 261: 119513, 2022) presented evidence that even when WM is near capacity, LTM items could still be reported. They argue that retrieved LTM items can bypass WM. We investigated this further by introducing continuous reporting of retrieved information and WM contents to their paradigm. If retrieval bypasses WM, then there should be no impairment of report accuracy to either WM contents or LTM-retrieved information. In the first experiment, WM reports suffered when an LTM item was retrieved. In the second, we found that when WM was near capacity (four items), the fidelity of LTM reports suffered compared to when WM was not (two items or no items). Additionally, WM contents were reported with lower fidelity when an LTM item was retrieved compared to a WM-only condition, under both two-item and four-item WM load. We conclude that LTM retrieval does not bypass WM.

Indexed as

Memory, Long-TermMemory, Short-TermMental RecallPattern Recognition, VisualAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultLong-term memoryLong-term memory retrievalVisual cognitionWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID40846824
PMCPMC12568878

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.