ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
We are talking about WM as a broad ability factor! Comment on Burgoyne, Frank, and Macnamara (2024).
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. 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
Burgoyne, Frank, and Macnamara (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2024) argued for a separation of updating and working memory factors. We agree that understanding variance across multiple different task classes and measures for the assessment of working memory is crucial. It is a strength of their contribution to include many and diverse subjects and also to study the convergent relation with fluid intelligence. In our view, however, their analysis and interpretation of findings is partly flawed, and other conclusions ought to be drawn from their data. More specifically, we argue that 1) the disengagement hypothesis is hardly convincing to account for their results, and 2) a reanalysis of the data supports other models more than the models put forward by Burgoyne et al. (2024).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.