Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33776669›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2021

Individual Differences in Working Memory and the N2pc.

Jane W Couperus, Kirsten O Lydic, Juniper E Hollis, Jessica L Roy, Amy R Lowe, Cindy M Bukach, Catherine L Reed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Role of Momentary Dissociation in the Sensory Cortex: A Neurophysiological Review and its Implications for Maladaptive Daydreaming.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Review
  3. 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

7 authors.

Jane W CouperusMt. Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA, United States.
Kirsten O LydicHampshire College, Amherst, MA, United States.
Juniper E HollisHampshire College, Amherst, MA, United States.
Jessica L RoyHampshire College, Amherst, MA, United States.
Amy R LoweHampshire College, Amherst, MA, United States.
Cindy M BukachPsychology Department, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA, United States.
Catherine L ReedClaremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The lateralized ERP N2pc component has been shown to be an effective marker of attentional object selection when elicited in a visual search task, specifically reflecting the selection of a target item among distractors. Moreover, when targets are known in advance, the visual search process is guided by representations of target features held in working memory at the time of search, thus guiding attention to objects with target-matching features. Previous studies have shown that manipulating working memory availability via concurrent tasks or within task manipulations influences visual search performance and the N2pc. Other studies have indicated that visual (non-spatial) vs. spatial working memory manipulations have differential contributions to visual search. To investigate this the current study assesses participants' visual and spatial working memory ability independent of the visual search task to determine whether such individual differences in working memory affect task performance and the N2pc. Participants (

Indexed as

event related potentialsN2pcspatial working memoryvisual searchvisual working memory

Identifiers

PMID33776669
PMCPMC7990761

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.