ArticleCognitive processing2026
Narrative text comprehension: how good and poor reading comprehenders use general working memory and specific semantic resources.
Article in Cognitive processing, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the contribution of verbal working memory (WM) and semantic organization resources in poor and good reading comprehenders (age range: 7.5-11 years). From an initial sample of 151 children, 20 poor and 18 good reading comprehenders were selected and administered a battery of WM tasks -ranging from low to high attentional demands (forward span, backward span, selective word span, and dual task word span)- as well as a semantic WM task involving the manipulation of taxonomic and thematic semantic organization. The findings support the role of working memory (WM) attentional resources, particularly those implicated in the backward span task, in differentiating between skilled and less-skilled reading comprehenders. In addition, a specific contribution of taxonomic and thematic semantic resources emerged. Notably, we observed a correlation between good reading comprehension and stronger taxonomic associations, whereas this relationship was absent in poor comprehenders. Taken together, these findings suggest that specific semantic memory resources contribute to reading comprehension over and above general working memory capacities.
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.