Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29402388›Full record

ArticleCortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior2018

Ignoring versus updating in working memory reveal differential roles of attention and feature binding.

Sean J Fallon, Rozemarijn M Mattiesing, Nina Dolfen, Sanjay G Manohar, Masud Husain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Sean J FallonDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: sean.fallon@psy.ox.ac.uk.
Rozemarijn M MattiesingDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nina DolfenDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sanjay G ManoharDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Masud HusainDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/P00878X/1Wellcome Trust 098282/Z/12/ZWellcome Trust 206330/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ignoring distracting information and updating current contents are essential components of working memory (WM). Yet, although both require controlling irrelevant information, it is unclear whether they have the same effects on recall and produce the same level of misbinding errors (incorrectly joining the features of different memoranda). Moreover, the likelihood of misbinding may be affected by the feature similarity between the items already encoded into memory and the information that has to be filtered out (ignored) or updated into memory. Here, we investigate these questions. Participants were sequentially presented with two pairs of arrows. The first pair of arrows always had to be encoded into memory, but the second pair either had to be ignored (ignore condition) or allowed to displace the previously encoded items (update condition). To investigate the effect of similarity on recall, we also varied, in a factorial manner, whether the items that had to be ignored or updated were presented in the same or different colours and/or same or different spatial locations to the original memoranda. By applying a computational model, we were able to quantify the levels of misbinding. Ignoring, but not updating, increased overall recall error as well as misbinding rates, even when accounting for the retention period. This indicates that not all manipulations of attention in WM are equal in terms of their effects on recall and misbinding. Misbinding rates in the ignore condition were affected by the colour and spatial congruence of relevant and irrelevant information to a greater extent than in the update condition. This finding suggests that attentional templates are used to evaluate relevant and irrelevant information in different ways during ignoring and updating. Together, the results suggest that differences between the two functions might occur due to higher levels of attentional compartmentalisation - or protection - during updating compared to ignoring.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAttentionFemaleHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermMental ProcessesMental RecallReaction TimeResearch DesignYoung AdultAttentionBindingIrrelevant informationWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID29402388
PMCPMC6181802

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.