ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance2018
Benefits of flexible prioritization in working memory can arise without costs.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Serial dependence in visual perception: A meta-analysis and review.Journal of vision · 2023Pooled it
- EEG dynamics reveal a dissociation between storage and selective attention within working memory.Scientific reports · 2019Trial
- The consequences of strategic prioritization in working memory.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Naturalistic actions modulate Working Memory prioritization in immersive virtual reality.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Visual working memory prioritization modulates serial dependence beyond simple attentional effects.BMC biology · 2025Article
- Retrieval from long-term memory does not bypass working memory.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Confidence and Insight into Working Memory Are Shaped by Attention and Recent Performance.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2025Article
- Reappearing sensory input guides visual working memory prioritization.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Temporal attention modulates distraction resistance of visual working memory representations.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Sensory and motor contents are prioritized dynamically in working memory.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Non-Target Suppression Supports the Formation of Representational Prioritization Under High Working Memory Load.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Comparing retro-cue benefit mechanisms in visual working memory: completely valid vs. highly valid retro-cues.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- The interaction of top-down and bottom-up attention in visual working memory.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Shifting attention between perception and working memory.Cognition · 2024Article
- Presaccadic attention does not facilitate the detection of changes in the visual field.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- The slow rate of working memory consolidation from vision is a structural limit.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Differences of resource allocation to active and passive states in visual working memory.Psychological research · 2023Article
- Spatial Configuration Effects on the Dissociation between Active and Latent States in Visual Working Memory.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Training allows switching from limited-capacity manipulations to large-capacity perceptual processing.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Most recent models conceptualize working memory (WM) as a continuous resource, divided up according to task demands. When an increasing number of items need to be remembered, each item receives a smaller chunk of the memory resource. These models predict that the allocation of attention to high-priority WM items during the retention interval should be a zero-sum game: improvements in remembering cued items come at the expense of uncued items because resources are dynamically transferred from uncued to cued representations. The current study provides empirical data challenging this model. Four precision retrocueing WM experiments assessed cued and uncued items on every trial. This permitted a test for trade-off of the memory resource. We found no evidence for trade-offs in memory across trials. Moreover, robust improvements in WM performance for cued items came at little or no cost to uncued items that were probed afterward, thereby increasing the net capacity of WM relative to neutral cueing conditions. An alternative mechanism of prioritization proposes that cued items are transferred into a privileged state within a response-gating bottleneck, in which an item uniquely controls upcoming behavior. We found evidence consistent with this alternative. When an uncued item was probed first, report of its orientation was biased away from the cued orientation to be subsequently reported. We interpret this bias as competition for behavioral control in the output-driving bottleneck. Other items in WM did not bias each other, making this result difficult to explain with a shared resource model. (PsycINFO Database Record
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.