ArticlePLoS computational biology2019
Independent working memory resources for egocentric and allocentric spatial information.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sparse Spatial Scaffolding for Visual Working Memory.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Eye movements reflect memory-related theta activity in the human brain.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Efficient measurement of dynamic working memory.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Focusing attention in working and long-term memory through dissociable mechanisms.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Instruction alters the influence of allocentric landmarks in a reach task.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Representation and computation in visual working memory.Nature human behaviour · 2024Review
- Position- and scale-invariant object-centered spatial localization in monkey frontoparietal cortex dynamically adapts to cognitive demand.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Integration of landmark and saccade target signals in macaque frontal cortex visual responses.Communications biology · 2023Article
- The role of ensemble average differs in working memory for depth and planar information.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- A neural surveyor to map touch on the body.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Integration of allocentric and egocentric visual information in a convolutional/multilayer perceptron network model of goal-directed gaze shifts.Cerebral cortex communications · 2022Article
- Post-saccadic changes disrupt attended pre-saccadic object memory.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Perspective taking and systematic biases in object location memory.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Visuospatial working memory enables us to maintain access to visual information for processing even when a stimulus is no longer present, due to occlusion, our own movements, or transience of the stimulus. Here we show that, when localizing remembered stimuli, the precision of spatial recall does not rely solely on memory for individual stimuli, but additionally depends on the relative distances between stimuli and visual landmarks in the surroundings. Across three separate experiments, we consistently observed a spatially selective improvement in the precision of recall for items located near a persistent landmark. While the results did not require that the landmark be visible throughout the memory delay period, it was essential that it was visible both during encoding and response. We present a simple model that can accurately capture human performance by considering relative (allocentric) spatial information as an independent localization estimate which degrades with distance and is optimally integrated with egocentric spatial information. Critically, allocentric information was encoded without cost to egocentric estimation, demonstrating independent storage of the two sources of information. Finally, when egocentric and allocentric estimates were put in conflict, the model successfully predicted the resulting localization errors. We suggest that the relative distance between stimuli represents an additional, independent spatial cue for memory recall. This cue information is likely to be critical for spatial localization in natural settings which contain an abundance of visual landmarks.
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.