ArticleScientific reports2017
Working memory accuracy for multiple targets is driven by reward expectation and stimulus contrast with different time-courses.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Task-irrelevant abrupt onsets differentially impact value-related orienting and maintenance.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Reward boosts cognitive control during working memory maintenance.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cueing distractors is effective when the incentive to suppress is high.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Working memory processes and the histamine-3 receptor in schizophrenia: a [Psychopharmacology · 2025Article
- Evidence for the Beneficial Effect of Reward on Working Memory: A Meta-Analytic Study.Journal of Intelligence · 2024Article
- Dynamic expectations: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence of sub-second updates in reward predictions.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Reward influences the allocation but not the availability of resources in visual working memory.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2023Article
- Dynamic expectations: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence of sub-second updates in reward predictions.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Task prioritization modulates alpha, theta and beta EEG dynamics reflecting proactive cognitive control.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Reward and loss incentives improve spatial working memory by shaping trial-by-trial posterior frontoparietal signals.NeuroImage · 2022Article
- Priority coding in the visual system.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2022Review
- Entrainment of Astrocytic and Neuronal CaNeuroscience bulletin · 2022Article
- Exploring reward-related attention selectivity deficits in Parkinson's disease.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- The neural and molecular basis of working memory function in psychosis: a multimodal PET-fMRI study.Molecular psychiatry · 2021Article
- Reward Expectation Differentially Modulates Global and Local Spatial Working Memory Accuracy.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Effects of social and nonsocial reward on executive function in preschoolers.Brain and behavior · 2020Article
- Dopamine is associated with prioritization of reward-associated memories in Parkinson's disease.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2020Article
- The possibility to make choices modulates feature-based effects of reward.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Somatosensory working memory in human reinforcement-based motor learning.Journal of neurophysiology · 2018Article
- Are there multiple ways to direct attention in working memory?Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The richness of sensory input dictates that the brain must prioritize and select information for further processing and storage in working memory. Stimulus salience and reward expectations influence this prioritization but their relative contributions and underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. Here we investigate how the quality of working memory for multiple stimuli is determined by priority during encoding and later memory phases. Selective attention could, for instance, act as the primary gating mechanism when stimuli are still visible. Alternatively, observers might still be able to shift priorities across memories during maintenance or retrieval. To distinguish between these possibilities, we investigated how and when reward cues determine working memory accuracy and found that they were only effective during memory encoding. Previously learned, but currently non-predictive, color-reward associations had a similar influence, which gradually weakened without reinforcement. Finally, we show that bottom-up salience, manipulated through varying stimulus contrast, influences memory accuracy during encoding with a fundamentally different time-course than top-down reward cues. While reward-based effects required long stimulus presentation, the influence of contrast was strongest with brief presentations. Our results demonstrate how memory resources are distributed over memory targets and implicates selective attention as a main gating mechanism between sensory and memory systems.
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.