Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42675312›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2026

The working memory advantage for meaningful stimuli persists under high levels of proactive interference.

Lauren H Williams, Viola S Störmer, Timothy F Brady

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. 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.

Lauren H WilliamsDepartment of Psychology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Viola S StörmerDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Timothy F BradyDepartment of Psychology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. tfbrady@ucsd.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous work has shown that visual working memory performance is higher for recognizable and meaningful stimuli relative to meaningless, but physically matched, stimuli (e.g., Asp et al., 2021). Here, we test whether the benefit for meaningful stimuli arises due to active storage in working memory or can, at least in part, be explained by reliance on more durable memories that persist across trials, such as episodic long-term memory that can substitute for active maintenance. We used ambiguous Mooney faces (Exp. 1, Exp. 3) and objects (Exp. 2) as well as scrambled versions of the same stimuli, resulting in some observers recognizing a given stimulus as meaningful and others not. To manipulate proactive interference, some items were repeated throughout the experiments and others were not. We found equivalent objective and subjective effects of meaningfulness on memory performance regardless of item repetition and thus the amount of proactive interference, consistent with items being actively stored in working memory and providing direct evidence against the idea that durable, cross-trial long-term memories play a critical role in eliciting the meaningfulness advantage. The meaningfulness advantage was strong even with significant proactive interference present. Overall, we find that proactive interference in these tasks is graded, governed by whether items are individuated by spatial or temporal context, and recognition of a stimulus as a face or object provides a strong benefit to working memory performance regardless of the level of proactive interference.

Indexed as

Capacity limitsMeaningfulnessProactive interferenceVisual working memory

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.