Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42339239›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cognition2025

Limits on selecting multiple items from working memory: the role of context and item competition.

Chen Tiferet-Dweck, Steven Zamora-Romero, Kerstin Unger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cognition, 2025. 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.

Chen Tiferet-Dweck *Department of Psychology, Queens College, City University of New York, New York, NY, United States.
Steven Zamora-RomeroDepartment of Psychology, Queens College, City University of New York, New York, NY, United States.
Kerstin Unger *Department of Psychology, Queens College, City University of New York, New York, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To support goal-directed behavior, working memory (WM) must allow flexible and efficient access to its contents. While much research has examined how individual items are selected from WM, less is known about the principles guiding the simultaneous selection of multiple contents. Prior work has shown that multi-item access is slower and more error-prone than single-item access. The present study aims to clarify the mechanisms underlying this cost. Specifically, we examine whether the performance decline identified in our prior work reflects increased competition among memory items, among the context representations that guide selection, or both. To distinguish between these possibilities, we used a spatial retrocuing paradigm in which we independently manipulated (1) the number of cued locations (i.e., spatial contexts) and (2) the number of to-be-selected memory items. Across five experiments, we consistently found that cueing two spatial locations-compared to one-substantially delayed selection, even when the number of relevant items was held constant. By contrast, relevant set size had a smaller and less consistent effect on selection speed. These results suggest that the bottleneck in multi-item WM selection arises from the need to use multiple contexts to retrieve the associated memory contents.

Indexed as

context competitiondual-accessitem competitionmulti-item accessoutput gatingretrocuingworking memoryworking memory selection

Identifiers

PMID42339239
PMCPMC13281070

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.