Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28454719›Full record

ReviewTrends in cognitive sciences2017

Prioritizing Information during Working Memory: Beyond Sustained Internal Attention.

Nicholas E Myers, Mark G Stokes, Anna C Nobre

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in cognitive sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 170 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
170citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

170 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

110 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Nicholas E MyersOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Oxford University, Oxford, UK; Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: nicholas.myers@ohba.ox.ac.uk.
Mark G StokesOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Oxford University, Oxford, UK; Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Anna C NobreOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Oxford University, Oxford, UK; Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: kia.nobre@ohba.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/J009024/1Wellcome Trust 092753Wellcome Trust 092760Wellcome Trust 104571Wellcome Trust 104571/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust 201409Wellcome Trust 201409/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory (WM) has limited capacity. This leaves attention with the important role of allowing into storage only the most relevant information. It is increasingly evident that attention is equally crucial for prioritizing representations within WM as the importance of individual items changes. Retrospective prioritization has been proposed to result from a focus of internal attention highlighting one of several representations. Here, we suggest an updated model, in which prioritization acts in multiple steps: first orienting towards and selecting a memory, and then reconfiguring its representational state in the service of upcoming task demands. Reconfiguration sets up an optimized perception-action mapping, obviating the need for sustained attention. This view is consistent with recent literature, makes testable predictions, and links WM with task switching and action preparation.

Indexed as

AttentionHumansMemory, Short-TermModels, Psychologicalattentionfocus of attentionlatent information storageretrocuetask setworking memory

Identifiers

PMID28454719
PMCPMC7220802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.