ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Colors, characters, locations, and shapes: The capacity of working memory for multiple, dissimilar sets of items.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Working memory (WM) often includes heterogenous items, as when one uses it while assembling a desk from sets of boards, knobs, bolts, and washers. Here, we investigate how WM capacity is limited when recalling multiple sets of items, for which performance surpasses the usual limits observed in single-set procedures. We presented participants (N = 181) with up to four sets of items for serial recall, usually of different stimulus types in the same trial (colors, characters, locations, and/or shapes). Conditions differed in the total number of items, the number of sets, and/or item types across sets in a trial. For uniformity in analyses, Set 1 was kept constant at three items of a type and was usually recalled first, free of output interference. In Experiment 1, recall of Set 1 was not only limited by the total number of items but also by the number of sets in a trial. Experiment 2 ruled out interference as an alternative explanation. Experiments 3-4 showed the dependency of the results on clearly grouped presentation of the sets. The results suggest that groups of items are associated as newly formed, often incomplete chunks offloaded from the focus of attention (FoA) to an activated portion of long-term memory (aLTM) for later retrieval. This offloading process would spare capacity but not without cost; a fraction of an item was lost from Set 1 for each subsequent item recalled. We present a dual-stage theory in which pointers held in the capacity-limited FoA allow retrieval of chunks from aLTM.
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.