Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30006363›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2018

Efficient Coding in Visual Working Memory Accounts for Stimulus-Specific Variations in Recall.

Robert Taylor, Paul M Bays

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Dynamics of working memory drift and information flow across the cortical hierarchy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Representational geometry explains puzzling error distributions in behavioral tasks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Perceptual similarity judgments do not predict the distribution of errors in working memory.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert TaylorDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdom rtt23@cam.ac.uk.
Paul M BaysDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4684-4893
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recall of visual features from working memory varies in both bias and precision depending on stimulus parameters. Whereas a number of models can approximate the average distribution of recall error across target stimuli, attempts to model how error varies with the choice of target have been

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAdaptation, PhysiologicalAdolescentAdultFemaleFixation, OcularHumansLikelihood FunctionsMaleMemory, Short-TermMental RecallOrientation, SpatialPhotic StimulationStatistical DistributionsVisual PerceptionYoung Adultefficient codingpopulation codingvisual working memory

Identifiers

PMID30006363
PMCPMC6083451
OpenAlexW2884871563

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.