ArticleComputational brain & behavior2026
Double-decision Response Time Models of Recall and Recognition Support Resource Accounts of Visual Working Memory.
Article in Computational brain & behavior, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We use response time decision models to determine whether visual working memory (VWM) is best described by a fixed-capacity 'slot' model or a continuously allocated 'resource' model. We used a double-decision paradigm that combined continuous-outcome recall and two-choice recognition to characterize performance in a VWM task. Participants viewed one to six colored items, recalled the color of a cued target using a color wheel, and then identified the target color from two options in a recognition task. We used continuous-outcome and two-choice EZ diffusion models to analyze the speed and accuracy of the two decisions. The models provided estimates of the latent cognitive parameters, drift rate and boundary separation, with the former providing measures of the memory strengths in the two decisions. We found significant correlations in both drift rate and boundary separation for the two decisions, indicating that continuous recall and two-choice recognition tasks engage similar memory and decision processes. Removing responses within the highly inaccurate 'heavy tails' of the recall distribution reduced, rather than increased, drift rate correlations - especially in the six item condition - implying that the heavy tails of the response distribution represent meaningful low-precision memory traces rather than guesses. Simulations showed that only a small fraction of the heavy tailed memory trace could be accounted for by swap errors. Our results are consistent with variable precision and resource accounts of VWM and inconsistent with slot-based accounts. Our findings underscore the value of joint modeling response time and accuracy data, and highlight the utility of double-decision tasks in clarifying theoretical accounts of memory processes.
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.