| Title |
The effects of refreshing and elaboration on working memory performance, and their contributions to long-term memory formation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-018-0805-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lea M. Bartsch, Henrik Singmann, Klaus Oberauer |
| Abstract |
Refreshing and elaboration are cognitive processes assumed to underlie verbal working-memory maintenance and assumed to support long-term memory formation. Whereas refreshing refers to the attentional focussing on representations, elaboration refers to linking representations in working memory into existing semantic networks. We measured the impact of instructed refreshing and elaboration on working and long-term memory separately, and investigated to what extent both processes are distinct in their contributions to working as well as long-term memory. Compared with a no-processing baseline, immediate memory was improved by repeating the items, but not by refreshing them. There was no credible effect of elaboration on working memory, except when items were repeated at the same time. Long-term memory benefited from elaboration, but not from refreshing the words. The results replicate the long-term memory benefit for elaboration, but do not support its beneficial role for working memory. Further, refreshing preserves immediate memory, but does not improve it beyond the level achieved without any processing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 30% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 10% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Czechia | 1 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Portugal | 1 | 5% |
| Myanmar | 1 | 5% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 8 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 7 | 35% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 106 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 21% |
| Researcher | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 25 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 48 | 45% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 32 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,717,226
of 25,252,667 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#187
of 1,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,192
of 338,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,252,667 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,647 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.