ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Memory's double take: Dissociating two forms of recollection in visual working memory.
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.
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
Visual working memory (VWM) supports both change detection and repetition detection, yet it remains unclear whether these operations can be functionally dissociated. We compared two VWM paradigms designed to isolate each process. The Any-Difference test presents an array of five colored squares, a brief retention interval, and then a test array in which either all squares retain their color or one square changes its shade; participants indicate whether any change occurred. The Any-Sameness test uses the same stimulus sequence but has participants report whether any square is a repeat of a previously shown item. In Experiment 1 (N = 24), participants provided six-point confidence ratings, and receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) were fit with a dual-process signal detection model, yielding estimates of recollecting a change, recollecting a repetition, and familiarity-driven discrimination (d'). The Any‑Difference test produced steep, curvilinear ROCs with higher recollection estimates for changes than repetitions, whereas the Any‑Sameness test produced shallower ROCs with higher recollection estimates for repetitions. Experiment 2 (N = 28) added subjective reports in which participants indicated whether they had actively maintained an item and "perceived" a change/repetition, or merely "sensed" it. ROC patterns replicated Experiment 1 and subjective reports confirmed that recollection estimates corresponded to trials involving active maintenance. Together, these findings show that the two tests provide complementary leverage on change- and repetition-based judgments and that the ability to recollect changes can be dissociated from recollecting repetitions. These methods offer a new approach for probing the underlying VWM processes in both healthy and clinical populations.
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.