ArticleMemory & cognition2021
Does the presence of more features in a bound representation in working memory require extra object-based attention?
Article in Memory & cognition, 2021. 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.
- Semantic relationships among objects reduce the attention required for inter-item binding in working memory.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Attention Dynamics in Spatial-Temporal Contexts.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The role of object-based attention in semantic working memory.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Role of long-term memory in object-based attention for the maintenance of binding in visual working memory.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Unraveling the binding problem in working memory: insights from the hierarchical binding model.Cognitive processing · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent studies have examined the role of attention in retaining bound representations in working memory (WM) and found that object-based attention plays a pivotal role. However, no study has investigated whether maintaining bound representations with more features in WM requires extra object-based attention. We investigated this by examining whether a secondary task consuming object-based attention was more disruptive to the maintenance of bindings in WM when more features were stored per object. We instructed participants to memorize three bound representations in a WM task while manipulating the number of features (two vs. three features) contained in each representation. Moreover, we manipulated whether a secondary task consuming object-based attention was interpolated into the maintenance phase of WM. If extra object-based attention was required after the addition of an extra feature in the bound representation, the secondary task would result in a greater disruption of the three- rather than two-featured binding. In two experiments, we found that the added secondary task significantly impaired the binding performance, but the performance of the two- and three-featured bindings was disrupted to the same extent. These results suggest that the presence of more features in a bound representation in WM does not require extra object-based attention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34046872What 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.