ArticleMemory & cognition2026
When repeated presentation of visual feature bindings does and does not result in learning: Visual short-term and long-term memory are distinct but work in tandem.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Two experiments explored a previous finding that 120 repetitions of the same six-item array for change detection resulted in no or very slow learning. This contrasts with learning from six repetitions tested by recall. Shimi and Logie (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 1387-1400, 2019) proposed that array repetition for change detection is supported by a limited capacity, temporary visual cache memory, with contents replaced by the next study array, even if it is identical. This is coupled with a weak episodic trace that strengthens across repeated presentations but requires more than 60 repetitions for learning. Experiment 1 tested whether (a) a short study-test interval would result in reliance on the visual cache with no evidence of learning across 120 repetitions, and (b) a longer study-test interval would gradually strengthen the episodic trace but require many repetitions for learning. A 500-ms study-test interval showed no learning after 120 repetitions, and participants reported being unaware of the repetition. A 5,000-ms study-test interval showed performance improvements, but only after 40 repetitions, and participants reported becoming aware of the repetition. In Experiment 2, different arrays on each of 120 trials with short and long study-test intervals showed the same lack of learning found for the 500-ms study-test interval in Experiment 1. Results appear consistent with a limited capacity visual cache memory for change detection that retains the array only for the current trial, working in tandem with a weak episodic trace that accumulates across trials but only supports performance after multiple repetitions and longer study-test intervals.
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.