ArticleMemory & cognition2017
The role of top-down suppression in mitigating the disruptive effects of task-irrelevant feature changes in visual working memory.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Interplay Between Multisensory Processing and Attention in Working Memory: Behavioral and Neural Indices of Audiovisual Object Storage.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Auditory objects in working memory include task-irrelevant features.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Unraveling the binding problem in working memory: insights from the hierarchical binding model.Cognitive processing · 2024Article
- Mechanisms of feature binding in visual working memory are stable over long delays.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Does the presence of more features in a bound representation in working memory require extra object-based attention?Memory & cognition · 2021Article
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
Abstract
Studies of change detection have shown that changing the task-irrelevant features of remembered objects impairs change detection for task-relevant features, a phenomenon known as the irrelevant change effect. Although this effect is pronounced at short study-test intervals, it is eliminated at longer delays. This has prompted the proposal that although all features of attended objects are initially stored together in visual working memory (VWM), top-down control can be used to suppress task-irrelevant features over time. The present study reports the results of three experiments aimed at testing the top-down suppression hypothesis. Experiments 1 and 2 tested whether the magnitude or time course of the irrelevant change effect was affected by the concurrent performance of a demanding executive load task (counting backwards by threes). Contrary to the top-down suppression view, the decreased availability of executive resources did not prolong the duration of the irrelevant change effect in either experiment, as would be expected if these resources were necessary to actively suppress task-irrelevant features. Experiment 3 showed that a visual pattern mask eliminates the irrelevant change effect and suggests that the source of the effect may lie in the use a high-resolution, sensory memory representation to match the memory and test displays when no task-irrelevant feature changes are present. These results suggest that the dissipation of the irrelevant change effect over time likely does not depend on the use of top-down control and raises questions about what can be inferred about the nature of storage in VWM from studies of this effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28741251What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.