Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30937674›Full record

Trial reportAttention, perception & psychophysics2020

Do we remember templates better so that we can reject distractors better?

Jason Rajsic, Geoffrey F Woodman

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Attentional priority is determined by predicted feature distributions.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Jason RajsicDepartment of Psychology, Center for Integrative and Cognitive Neuroscience, Vanderbilt Vision Research Center, Vanderbilt University, PMB 407817, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN, 37240-7817, USA. jason.rajsic@vanderbilt.edu.
Geoffrey F WoodmanDepartment of Psychology, Center for Integrative and Cognitive Neuroscience, Vanderbilt Vision Research Center, Vanderbilt University, PMB 407817, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN, 37240-7817, USA.

Funding

Shop Module CoreP30EY008126 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Kevin L Schey · 1989 to 2026
$19.6M
Visual Event-Related Potentials: Comparative ElectrophysiologyR01EY019882 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI WOODMAN, GEOFFREY F · 2010 to 2020
$4.0M
Restoring oscillations underlying adaptive control in schizophrenia with direct currentR01MH110378 · NIMH · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI PARK, SOHEE, WOODMAN, GEOFFREY F · 2016 to 2020
$2.0M
Controlling visual cognition with visual working memory and long-term memoryR01EY025275 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI LOGAN, GORDON DENNIS, WOODMAN, GEOFFREY F · 2015 to 2018
$1.4M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY008126NEI NIH HHS R01 EY019882NEI NIH HHS R01 EY025275NEI NIH HHS R01-EY025275NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH110378NIMH NIH HHS R01-MH110378
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feature Integration Theory proposed that attention shifted between target-like representations in our visual field. However, the nature of the representations that determined what was target like received less specification than the nature of the attention shifts. In recent years, visual search research has focused on the nature of the memory representations that we use to guide our shifts of attention. Sensitive measures of memory quality indicate that the template representations are remembered better than other, merely maintained, memories. Here we tested the hypothesis that we prepare for difficult search tasks by storing a higher fidelity target representation in working memory than we do when preparing for an easy search task. To test this hypothesis, we explicitly tested participants' memory of the target color they searched for (i.e., the attentional template) versus another memory that was not used to guide attention (i.e., an accessory representation) following blocks of searches with easy-to-find targets (i.e., distractors were homogeneously colored) to blocks of searches with hard-to-find targets (i.e., distractors were heterogeneously colored). Although homogeneous-distractor searches required minimal precision for distractor rejection, we found that templates were still remembered better than accessories, just like we found in a heterogeneous-distractor search. As a consequence, we suggest that stronger memories for templates likely reflects the need to decide whether new perceptual inputs match the template, and not an attempt to create a better template representation in anticipation of difficult searches.

Indexed as

AdultAttentionColor PerceptionDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleMemoryMemory, Short-TermMental RecallPerceptual MaskingReaction TimeVisual FieldsVisual PerceptionYoung AdultAttention: SelectiveVisual searchVisual working memory

Identifiers

PMID30937674
PMCPMC6773512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.