Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42014599›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026

Canonical and retinal size in visual working memory.

William L Gronewald, Vanessa G Lee, Roger W Remington

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 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

3 authors.

William L GronewaldDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, S504 Elliott Hall, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. wgronewald15@gmail.com.
Vanessa G LeeDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, S504 Elliott Hall, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Roger W RemingtonDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, S504 Elliott Hall, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual working memory (VWM) is key to many daily tasks, such as remembering visual information about traffic when crossing a busy street. Despite extensive research, the extent to which VWM abstracts out sensory properties not relevant to identification, such as object size, remains unclear. In three experiments, we examined how object size affects VWM, with size defined in two ways: retinal size, referring to the image's size on the screen (small or large photos), and canonical size, referring to the typical size of objects in the real world, from big (e.g., a tower) to small (e.g., an egg). Experiments 1 and 2 tested memory for real-world objects, classified into four types based on their photo size and canonical size. VWM was better for large rather than small photos-a retinal-size effect-and for canonically small than big objects-a canonical-size effect. These effects were stronger when participants remembered a mix of different-sized objects than when all objects in a display were of the same size. Experiment 3 tested memory for colored squares that were either big or small on the screen. Size had no effect when displays consisted of colored squares of the same size, but big squares were remembered better when mixed with small squares. These results suggest that seemingly irrelevant sensory properties affect VWM, favoring objects that stimulate more neurons. The effect is stronger when size conditions are mixed, indicating that retinally larger objects are better attended.

Indexed as

Memory, Short-TermPattern Recognition, VisualSize PerceptionVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleRetinaYoung AdultAttentionCanonical sizeChange detectionVisual working memory

Identifiers

PMID42014599
PMCPMC13099791

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.