Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28414499›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance2017

Executive and perceptual distraction in visual working memory.

Richard J Allen, Alan D Baddeley, Graham J Hitch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The multicomponent model of working memory fifty years on.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Working memory prioritisation effects in tactile immediate serial recall.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Can we distinguish three maintenance processes in working memory?Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2018
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Tracking working memory maintenance with pupillometry.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2018
    Article
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.

Richard J AllenSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds.ORCID 0000-0002-1887-3016
Alan D BaddeleyDepartment of Psychology, University of York.
Graham J HitchDepartment of Psychology, University of York.

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The contents of visual working memory are likely to reflect the influence of both executive control resources and information present in the environment. We investigated whether executive attention is critical in the ability to exclude unwanted stimuli by introducing concurrent potentially distracting irrelevant items to a visual working memory paradigm, and manipulating executive load using simple or more demanding secondary verbal tasks. Across 7 experiments varying in presentation format, timing, stimulus set, and distractor number, we observed clear disruptive effects of executive load and visual distraction, but relatively minimal evidence supporting an interactive relationship between these factors. These findings are in line with recent evidence using delay-based interference, and suggest that different forms of attentional selection operate relatively independently in visual working memory. (PsycINFO Database Record

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAttentionExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermPsychomotor PerformanceVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28414499
PMCPMC5560518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.