ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Long-term memory speeds encoding, independently of attention.
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
Recent studies suggest that familiar objects benefit from faster working memory (WM) encoding - the transformation of fragile perceptual representations into durable WM representations. This observation led contemporary WM models to postulate a long-term memory (LTM) "template-matching" mechanism, which speeds standard encoding processes. However, faster encoding may also be caused by higher attentional priority for familiar objects. In the current study, we examined whether LTM template matching can be dissociated from selective attention. We used a Rapid Serial Visual Presentation task and a manipulation previously shown to have no effect on attention. While the selection cue remained constant throughout the experiment, targets were either English or Hebrew letters, presented to native English-speakers and Hebrew-speakers. In Experiments 1 and 2, when the target was one of 16 letters, participants were more accurate when reporting target letters from their (familiar) native language relative to non-native language. In Experiment 2, the target was preceded by peripheral distractors which resulted in an "attentional blink" effect. Although a familiarity benefit was present for target accuracy, familiar and unfamiliar distractors produced an attentional blink effect of equal magnitude, demonstrating equal efficacy in capturing attention. In Experiment 3, a familiarity effect emerged even when the target language was blocked. This shows that the familiarity effect observed in Experiments 1 and 2 cannot be attributed to a response bias in favour of reporting one's own language. Overall, the current study provides robust evidence that LTM template-matching speeds encoding of familiar items, independently of attention.
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.