ArticleJournal of vision2020
The role of attention in retaining the binding of integral features in working memory.
Article in Journal of vision, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Object-based attention sustains feature binding in working memory without requiring strategic control.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Neural mechanisms of feature binding in working memory.Communications biology · 2026Article
- The role of object-based attention in semantic working memory.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Unraveling the binding problem in working memory: insights from the hierarchical binding model.Cognitive processing · 2024Article
- Does the presence of more features in a bound representation in working memory require extra object-based attention?Memory & cognition · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have suggested that retaining bindings in working memory (WM) requires more object-based attention than retaining constituent features. However, we still need to address the object-based attention hypothesis to determine both the generality (Does the object-based attention hypothesis of binding apply to feature bindings other than those tested?) and the reality (Was the observed effect in previous studies an artifact of the testing process?). We addressed these two issues by focusing on the binding of integral features, which was ignored in previous studies. Integral features can be manipulated independently but cannot be attended to or processed independently of each other, and they are primarily perceived in a more unitary fashion. Consequently, integral-feature bindings should be processed as integrated units without the help of extra object-based attention. We examined whether or not the object-based attention hypothesis applied to integral-feature bindings (generality), and these results enabled us to check the reality of the hypothesis. In line with our prediction, we found that a secondary task consuming object-based attention did not selectively impair the binding performance (Experiments 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7). The absence of selective binding impairment was not attributable to the use of an invalid secondary task (Experiment 4), failure to memorize the binding between length and width (Experiment 6), tapping the incorrect type of attention (Experiment 6), the feasibility of feature categorization (Experiment 7), or poor task performance (Experiment 7). Overall, these results suggest that the object-based attention hypothesis does not fit for the integral-feature bindings, and that the pivotal role of object-based attention reported by previous studies was reliable.
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.