ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022
Breaking the cardinal rule: The impact of interitem interaction and attentional priority on the cardinal biases in orientation working memory.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serial dependence does not build up to central tendency bias in orientation judgments.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of Distractor-Induced Repulsion Effect in Visual Working Memory: A Behavioral and ERP Study.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Color category and inter-item interaction influence color working memory codependently.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Learning efficient representations of environmental priors in working memory.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although it is not typically assumed in influential models of visual working memory (WM), representations in WM are systematically biased by multiple factors. Orientation representations are biased away from the cardinal axis (i.e., cardinal bias) and they are biased away from or toward the other orientation simultaneously held in WM (i.e., interitem interaction). The present study investigated the extent to which these two bias mechanisms interact in WM. In Experiment 1, participants remembered two sequentially presented orientations and reproduced both orientations after a short delay. Cardinal biases were assessed separately for the trials where the two mechanisms produce biases in the same direction (i.e., congruent trials) and the trials where they produce biases in the opposite direction (i.e., incongruent trials). Whereas congruent trials exhibited a typical cardinal bias, incongruent trials exhibited no cardinal bias, demonstrating that the cardinal bias was canceled out by the interitem interaction. Follow-up experiments extended these results by manipulating attentional priority for the two orientations by means of precue (Experiment 2) and postcue (Experiment 3). In both experiments, attentionally prioritized items exhibited a typical cardinal bias irrespective of the congruency whereas attentionally unprioritized items exhibited a reversal of the cardinal bias in the incongruent trials, demonstrating that selective attention modulates the influence of the interitem interaction. Together, these results suggest that WM leverages information about specific stimuli and their relationship to support a given behavioral goal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34658001What 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.