ReviewCognitive research: principles and implications2026
The mosaic of experience: How individual differences in attention and working memory shape event segmentation.
Review in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 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
Abstract
Episodic memories, although experienced as continuous, are structured into discrete events, a process supported by working memory (WM) and attentional control. Yet, the causal contributions of these mechanisms remain underspecified. This review synthesizes behavioral, cognitive, and neural findings from healthy aging and three cognitive profiles with known WM and attentional control impairments (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder) to clarify how these mechanisms shape event segmentation. Drawing on converging findings across these groups, we outline theoretically grounded expectations: aging may show preserved segmentation when semantic structure is firm but disruptions under interference and higher control demands; ADHD may exhibit coarser segmentation and reduced agreement due to attentional lapses and self-referential intrusions; dyslexia may show reduced fine-grained segmentation specifically for rapidly changing verbal events due to temporal-processing limits; and OCD may demonstrate schema-driven, idiosyncratic boundary placement under threat-relevant contexts. Integrating these findings, we propose a mechanism-centered framework in which segmentation arises from the interaction of WM constraints, attentional control dynamics, and schema/contextual modulation. This framework refines prediction-error-based accounts and generates testable hypotheses for future experimental work.
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.