ArticleScientific reports2019
Task-irrelevant financial losses inhibit the removal of information from working memory.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
The receipt of financial rewards or penalties - though task-irrelevant - may exert an obligatory effect on manipulating items in working memory (WM) by constraining a forthcoming shift in attention or reinforcing attentional shifts that have previously occurred. Here, we adjudicate between these two hypotheses by varying - after encoding- the order in which task-irrelevant financial outcomes and cues indicating which items need to be retained in memory are presented (so called retrocues). We employed a "what-is-where" design that allowed for the fractionation of WM recall into separate components: identification, precision and binding (between location and identity). Principally, valence-dependent effects were observed only for precision and binding, but only when outcomes were presented before, rather than after, the retrocue. Specifically, task-irrelevant financial losses presented before the retrocue caused a systematic breakdown in binding (misbinding), whereby the features of cued and non-cued memoranda became confused, i.e., the features that made up relevant memoranda were displaced by those of non-cued (irrelevant) items. A control experiment, in which outcomes but no cues were presented, failed to produce the same effects, indicating that the inclusion of retrocues were necessary for generating this effect. These results show that the receipt of financial penalties - even when uncoupled to performance - can prevent irrelevant information from being effectively pruned from WM. These results illustrate the importance of reward-related processing to controlling the contents of WM.
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.