ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Does working memory consolidation rely on central processing?
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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
Working memory (WM) consolidation is the preservation of perceptual information to insulate it from distraction. A decision task following WM sample presentation retroactively disrupts consolidation, apparently regardless of whether the WM sample and decision task rely on the same representational formats. Critically, this representational-format-general interference suggests that consolidation entails "central" executive domain-general processing. However, the evidence for central interference is weak because verbal recoding of nonverbal samples is thought to be ubiquitous in WM. Typical decision tasks used to evoke interference also entail verbal materials, making it possible that the observed interference is really a product of competition for "peripheral" phonological storage resources. Moreover, some WM models suggest a direct connection between perceptual mechanisms and storage, without direct access of central processes to format-specific storage. Thus, it remains unknown whether WM consolidation entails central executive processing or could have a purely storage-buffer (verbal) locus. The current study embedded an established task to measure WM consolidation and its interruption by a decision task within a further within-participants 2 × 2 factorial design, using different WM sample and decision task representational format pairings in each task block. This allowed measurement of central processing contributions to consolidation (cross-format blocks), and evaluation of potential additional interference in format-specific storage buffers (same-format blocks). Interference in cross-format pairings did not increase for same-format pairings, supporting the view that WM consolidation is dependent on central processing. Subject-level data have been made publicly available on the Open Science Framework and can be accessed at the following link: https://osf.io/p387u/ .
Indexed as
Identifiers
41811613What 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.