Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34658001›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022

Breaking the cardinal rule: The impact of interitem interaction and attentional priority on the cardinal biases in orientation working memory.

Gi-Yeul Bae

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

1 author.

Gi-Yeul BaeDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University, 950 S. McAllister Ave, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA. giyeulbae@asu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8598-0869

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Memory, Short-TermVisual PerceptionAttentionBiasHumansMental RecallCardinal biasInteritem interactionSelective attentionVisual working memory

Identifiers

PMID34658001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.