ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022
Effects of item distinctiveness on the retrieval of objects and object-location bindings from visual 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 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.
- A Comparative Analysis of Eye Movement Accuracy for Locating Items Held in Visual Short-Term Memory Among Young Healthy Adults, Older Adults With Normal Cognition, and Older Adults Indicative of Mild Cognitive Impairment.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Semantic meaning enhances feature-binding but not quantity or precision of locations in visual working memory.Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- A Technology Aid to Help People with Blindness and Moderate Intellectual Disability Retrieve Common Objects from Storage Units: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Which factor affects the storage of real-world object information in visual working memory: perceptual or conceptual information?Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- The influence of categorical stimuli on relational memory binding.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Visual working memory (VWM) is prone to interference from stored items competing for its limited capacity. Distinctiveness or similarity of the items is acknowledged to affect this competition, such that poor item distinctiveness causes a failure to discriminate between items sharing common features. In three experiments, we studied how the distinctiveness of studied real-world objects (i.e., whether the objects belong to the same or different basic categories) affects the retrieval of objects themselves (simple recognition) and object-location conjunctions (information about which object was where in a display, cued recall). In Experiments 1 and 2, we found that distinctiveness did not affect memories for objects or for locations, but low-distinctive objects were more frequently reported at "swapped" locations that originally contained other objects, showing object-location memory swaps. In Experiments 3 we found that observers swapped the location of a tested object with another object from the same category more frequently than with any of the objects from another category. This suggests that more similar studied objects cause more retrieval competition in object-location judgments than in simple recognition. Additionally, we discuss a possible role of categorical labeling of locations that can support object-location retrieval when the studied objects are highly distinct.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35199322What 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.