ArticleBrain sciences2026
Age and Proactive Interference in Visual Working Memory: Reassessing the Recent-Probes Task.
Article in Brain sciences, 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesProactive interference (PI) occurs when existing memories make it harder to retrieve newer information, and visual working memory in older adults may be impacted by increased vulnerability to PI. However, evidence supporting age-sensitive PI in the recent-probes task-a major technique for measuring PI-is mixed. Additionally, features of this procedure may have exaggerated or distorted the effect, so the current study reassessed the recent-probes task.
methodsThroughout trials in an online experiment, adults aged 18-29 and 64-80 memorized four images over a brief delay and then had to choose between a current target and a foil depicting an item from the previous trial (a recent negative probe) or a more distant trial (a non-recent negative probe). Participants were cued to respond either immediately or after a pause, and targets came from a small, extensively repeated set or a unique set.
resultsPI was present, with slower and less accurate responding to RN than NRN foils, and errors notably increased when stimuli were unique and an immediate response was required. However, there was little evidence for age differences in PI.
conclusionsThe present study did not suggest that older adults are more vulnerable to PI than younger adults, at least in this task and with this sample.
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.