ArticleCognitive processing2020
Prioritization in visual working memory enhances memory retention and speeds up processing in a comparison task.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Naturalistic actions modulate Working Memory prioritization in immersive virtual reality.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Non-Target Suppression Supports the Formation of Representational Prioritization Under High Working Memory Load.Brain sciences · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Visual working memory retains visual information for controlling behavior. We studied how information in visual working memory is prioritized for being used. In two experiments, participants memorized the stimuli of a memory display for a brief interval, followed by a retro-cue. The retro-cue was either valid, indicating which stimulus from the memory display was relevant (i.e., had priority) in the upcoming comparison with a probe, or was neutral (uninformative). Next, the probe was presented, terminated by a mask, and participants reported whether it matched a stimulus from the memory display. The presentation duration of the probe was varied. Assessing performance as a function of presentation duration allowed to disentangle two components of working memory: memory retention and the speed of processing the probe for the memory-based comparison. Compared with neutral retro-cues, valid retro-cues improved retention and at the same time accelerated processing of the probe. These findings show for the first time that prioritization in working memory impacts on distinct mechanisms: retrospectively, it supports memory retention, and prospectively, it enhances perceptual processing in upcoming comparison tasks.
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.