ArticleJournal of cognition2019
Working Memory and Attention - Response to Commentaries.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- IQ variability and cognitive life skills: insights from Spanish students in vocational physical activity and sports training.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- The interaction of top-down and bottom-up attention in visual working memory.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A Gestalt Theory Approach to Structure in Language.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is a brief reply to the commentaries by Adam and deBettencourt (2019); Allen (2019); Kiyonaga (2019); Schneider (2019); and Van der Stigchel and Olivers (2019), focusing on four topics: (1) I defend the idea that attention need not be characterized as a limited resource. (2) I explain how I conceptualize the role of WM in cognitive control, and how recruitment of sensory processing networks contributes to control but not maintenance. (3) I discuss different ways in which information can be selectively prioritized during or after being encoded into WM, and the different consequences of these processes. (4) I argue that sustained attention to a task can be understood as the mind's ability to prioritize that task over task-unrelated representations.
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.