ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
When can working memory consolidation be interrupted?
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The process of making perceptual information resistant to distraction in working memory (WM) is known as WM consolidation. The nature of WM consolidation is poorly understood, including basic aspects such as its speed and what can or cannot interrupt it. To evaluate the speed of consolidation, studies often use a dual-task approach with a WM sample (T1) preceding a sensorimotor decision (T2) by a variable interval. It is unclear what aspects of T1 and T2 lead to interference, particularly the retroactive interference that provides a cleaner measure of consolidation than proactive interference. These observations motivated the current goal of establishing the boundary conditions for the retroactive interference effect-that is, determining in what circumstances WM consolidation can be interrupted by a subsequent task. We investigated these boundary conditions via a series of modified versions of the dual-task consolidation interruption paradigm. The results demonstrate that retroactive interference is robust to changed WM probe demands. However, retroactive interference was less robust to modifications of the T2 task: it appears that a task switch (from WM encoding to another task) with an immediate speeded motor response is the most effective approach to evoke retroactive interference. These results are best understood in the context of central resource sharing models of dual-task interference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42087015What 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.