ArticleBrain sciences2020
Age Differences in the Efficiency of Filtering and Ignoring Distraction in Visual Working Memory.
Article in Brain sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Individual differences in working memory capacity are unrelated to the magnitudes of retrocue benefits.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Older adults are impaired by distractors presented during working memory encoding.Psychological research · 2025Article
- From Gamma Coherence to Theta-Phase Synchronization: Task-Dependent Interhemispheric Integration in Boundary-Free Multiple-Object Tracking.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Predicting working memory efficiency across adulthood: the role of enhancement and suppression attentional mechanisms, moderated by age and other factors.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Article
- Comparing retro-cue benefit mechanisms in visual working memory: completely valid vs. highly valid retro-cues.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- A negative emotional state impairs individuals' ability to filter distractors from working memory: an ERP study.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2024Article
- Sustained attention required for effective dimension-based retro-cue benefit in visual working memory.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Aging and distractor resistance in working memory: Does emotional valence matter?BMC psychology · 2022Article
- Visual Attention-Related Processing: Perspectives from Ageing, Cognitive Decline and Dementia.Brain sciences · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Healthy aging is associated with decline in the ability to maintain visual information in working memory (WM). We examined whether this decline can be explained by decreases in the ability to filter distraction during encoding or to ignore distraction during memory maintenance. Distraction consisted of irrelevant objects (Exp. 1) or irrelevant features of an object (Exp. 2). In Experiment 1, participants completed a spatial WM task requiring remembering locations on a grid. During encoding or during maintenance, irrelevant distractor positions were presented. In Experiment 2, participants encoded either single-feature (colors or orientations) or multifeature objects (colored triangles) and later reproduced one of these features using a continuous scale. In multifeature blocks, a precue appeared before encoding or a retrocue appeared during memory maintenance indicating with 100% certainty to the to-be-tested feature, thereby enabling filtering and ignoring of the irrelevant (not-cued) feature, respectively. There were no age-related deficits in the efficiency of filtering and ignoring distractor objects (Exp. 1) and of filtering irrelevant features (Exp. 2). Both younger and older adults could not ignore irrelevant features when cued with a retrocue. Overall, our results provide no evidence for an aging deficit in using attention to manage visual WM.
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.