Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41606082›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2026

Long-term effects of working memory retrieval from prioritized and deprioritized states.

Frieda Born, Bernhard Spitzer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Frieda BornMachine Learning Group, Technical University, Berlin, Germany. f.born@tu-berlin.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1214-4864
Bernhard SpitzerChair of Biopsychology, Technical University, Dresden, Germany. bernhard.spitzer@tu-dresden.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9752-932X

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) Grant 462752742 (B.S.)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Which factors determine whether information temporarily held in working memory (WM) can later be remembered from long-term memory (LTM)? Previous work has shown that retrieving ("testing") memories from LTM can benefit their future LTM recall. Here, we examined the extent to which a benefit for subsequent LTM may also occur after retrieval from WM, depending on whether the WM contents were retrieved from a prioritized or deprioritized state. In three experiments (n = 383 participants), we combined variants of a visual WM paradigm with a subsequent surprise LTM recall test. We found a LTM benefit of WM testing both for prioritized and deprioritized WM contents, which, interestingly, was stronger for the deprioritized information. This pattern showed similarly across experiments with different priority manipulations. Subsequent LTM benefits generally occurred after WM testing with a recall-like test format (continuous report), but not after simple WM comparisons against a probe. The surprisingly larger LTM benefit for deprioritized WM contents may reflect enhanced encoding of the participants' own subjective WM report - as opposed to the originally presented sample information - into LTM.

Identifiers

PMID41606082
PMCPMC12913606

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.