ArticleVisual cognition2021
Towards a better understanding of information storage in visual working memory.
Article in Visual cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retinotopic Spatial Working Memory Representations Are Not Affected by Task-irrelevant Visual Stimuli.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Transformed Visual Working Memory Representations in Human Occipitotemporal and Posterior Parietal Cortices.eNeuro · 2025Article
- Interactive shape and color representation in visual working memory for colored objects in the human occipitotemporal cortex.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Neuronal representation of visual working memory content in the primate primary visual cortex.Science advances · 2024Article
- Causal evidence for the role of the sensory visual cortex in visual short-term memory maintenance.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Working-Memory, Alpha-Theta Oscillations and Musical Training in Older Age: Research Perspectives for Speech-on-speech Perception.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Review
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
Abstract
Chota and Van der Stigchel (this issue), Iamshchinina, Christophel, Gayet, and Rademaker (this issue), Lorenc and Sreenivasa (this issue), and Teng and Postle (this issue) each present a commentary regarding Xu (2020) where I conclude that sensory regions are nonessential for the storage of information in visual working memory (VWM). They argue instead that sensory regions are critical to VWM storage. Here I briefly reiterate some of the key evidence against this account, some of which has not been accounted by the four commentaries. I also provide a detailed reanalysis of why the main evidence supporting this account may be problematic. Collectively, existence evidence from human neuroimaging and TMS studies and that from monkey neurophysiology studies does not provide strong support for the sensory storage account of VWM. To form an accurate understanding of the distinctive role each brain region may play in perception and VWM as well as how they may interact to collectively support a VWM task, it is important that we properly survey and evaluate all the available evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.