Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33486589›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2022

Selective attention to stimulus representations in perception and memory: commonalities and differences.

Jasmin M Kizilirmak, Sarah Glim, Margarita Darna, Patrick H Khader

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Jasmin M KizilirmakCognitive Neuroscience Lab, Institute of Psychology, University of Hildesheim, Universitätsplatz 1, 31141, Hildesheim, Germany. jasmin.kizilirmak@dzne.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5938-3523
Sarah GlimInstitute for Psychology, University of Kassel, Holländische Str. 36-38, 34127, Kassel, Germany.
Margarita DarnaGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Von-Siebold-Star. 3a, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Patrick H KhaderPsychology School, Fresenius University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt a. M., Germany. patrick.khader@hs-fresenius.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been proposed that the deployment of selective attention to perceptual and memory representations might be governed by similar cognitive processes and neural resources. However, evidence for this simple and appealing proposal remains inconclusive, which might be due to a considerable divergence in tasks and cognitive demands when comparing attentional selection in memory versus perception. To examine whether selection in both domains share common attentional processes and only differ in the stimuli they act upon (external vs. internal), we compared behavioral costs or benefits between selection domains. In both domains, participants had to attend a target stimulus from a set of simultaneously presented stimuli or simultaneously active memory representations, respectively, with set, target, or both, being repeated or changed across trials. The results of two experiments delineated principal similarities and differences of selection processes in both domains: While positive priming from stimulus repetition was found in both selection domains, we found no consistent effects of negative priming when shifting the focus of attention to a previously to-be-ignored stimulus. However, priming in the perception task was mainly due to repetitions of the target feature (here: color), whereas for the memory task, repetition of the same set of stimulus representations was most important. We propose that the differences can be attributed to a reduced cognitive effort when the now relevant memory representation had already been pre-activated (even as a distractor) in the previous trial. Additionally, our experiments both underscore the importance of taking stimulus-response associations into account, which may be a hidden factor behind differences between domains. We conclude that any attempt of comparing internal versus external attentional selection has to consider inherent differences in selection dynamics across representational domains.

Indexed as

AttentionPerceptionHumansVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID33486589
PMCPMC8821477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.