ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Interactions of working and long-term memory: Evidence from Brown-Peterson and proactive interference effects.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 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
How do working memory (WM) and episodic long-term memory (eLTM) interact to support immediate memory performance? Their contributions are often intertwined, reflecting a functional overlap that challenges clear-cut distinctions between the two systems. The present study investigates this interaction by assessing the combined effects of two diagnostic manipulations-proactive interference (PI) and secondary task effects (via Brown-Peterson-style filled retention intervals)-on binding tasks across varying set sizes. In Experiment 1, participants encoded word-object pairs and completed a four-alternative forced-choice test. Experiment 2 extended this paradigm to the visual domain, using object-color pairings tested via a continuous color reproduction task. In both experiments, PI selectively impaired performance at larger set sizes, consistent with increasing reliance on eLTM under higher memory load. Secondary task effects were strongest at smaller set sizes, reflecting a strong contribution of WM to performance. Secondary task effects impaired performance more strongly under high PI, especially at larger set sizes. This pattern suggests that when interference limits access to eLTM, participants shift reliance to WM-which, in turn, is vulnerable to disruption. These findings support a dynamic view in which WM and eLTM jointly contribute to immediate memory, with their relative involvement modulated by memory load and interference.
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.