Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The capacity of visual working memory was examined when complex objects from different categories were remembered. Previous studies have not examined how visual similarity affects object memory, though it has long been known that similar-sounding phonological information interferes with rehearsal in auditory working memory. Here, experiments required memory for two or four objects. Memory capacity was compared between remembering four objects from a single object category to remembering four objects from two different categories. Two-category sets led to increased memory capacity only when upright faces were included. Capacity for face-only sets never exceeded their nonface counterparts, and the advantage for two-category sets when faces were one of the categories disappeared when inverted faces were used. These results suggest that two-category sets which include faces are advantaged in working memory but that faces alone do not lead to a memory capacity advantage.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.006 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!