Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41998474›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2026

Investigating effects of divided attention at test on memory accessibility and precision in a continuous report paradigm.

Nursima Ünver, Eren Günseli

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Nursima ÜnverDepartment of Psychology, Sabanci University, Orta Mahalle, 34956, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7979-3036
Eren GünseliDepartment of Psychology, Sabanci University, Orta Mahalle, 34956, Istanbul, Turkey. eren.gunseli@sabanciuniv.edu.

Funding

Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu 121K710
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previously reported tests for effects of dividing attention during long-term memory (LTM) retrieval have yielded inconclusive findings. This may be due to most prior work relying on categorical recall or recognition measures, which lack sufficient precision to detect subtle effects. Here, we provide the first test of divided attention effects on LTM retrieval using a continuous report paradigm, allowing retrieval errors to be measured with greater precision. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 44) encoded object-orientation associations and later retrieved object orientations under either full or divided attention while performing a visual search task. On each trial, error was computed as the difference between the reported and studied orientations of the tested object. Dividing attention during retrieval resulted in increased errors. To characterize the nature of these errors, we analyzed error distributions using both a standard mixture model (SMM) and the Target Confusability Competition (TCC) model. The SMM showed that divided attention reduced memory accessibility, while the precision of retrieved memories remained unaffected. The TCC model provided better fits and similarly indicated reduced memory strength under divided attention. Experiment 1 included an additional working memory load due to withholding the divided attention task response throughout the main retrieval task; Experiment 2 (N = 44) replicated the main findings while eliminating this load by having participants respond to the secondary task before the retrieval response. Together, these findings show that continuous report measures reveal costs of divided attention on LTM retrieval that primarily reflect reduced retrieval success or strength rather than reduced representational precision.

Indexed as

DistractionEpisodic memoryMixture modelingMulti-tasking

Identifiers

PMID41998474

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.