Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36536206›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023

Internal attention is the only retroactive mechanism for controlling precision in working memory.

Fatih Serin, Eren Günseli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Fatih SerinMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. fatih.serin@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4567-2401
Eren GünseliDepartment of Psychology, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7944-7774

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent research has suggested that humans can assert control over the precision of working memory (WM) items. However, the mechanisms that enable this control are unclear. While some studies suggest that internal attention improves precision, it may not be the only factor, as previous work also demonstrated that WM storage is disentangled from attention. To test whether there is a precision control mechanism beyond internal attention, we contrasted internal attention and precision requirements within the same trial in three experiments. In every trial, participants memorized two items briefly. Before the test, a retro-cue indicated which item would be tested first, thus should be attended. Importantly, we encouraged participants to store the unattended item with higher precision by testing it using more similar lure colors at the probe display. Accuracy was analyzed on a small proportion of trials where the target-lure similarity, hence the task difficulty, was equal for attended and unattended items. Experiments 2 and 3 controlled for output interference by the first test and involuntary precision boost by the retro-cue, respectively. In all experiments, the unattended item had lower accuracy than the attended item, suggesting that individuals were not able to remember it more precisely than the attended item. Thus, we conclude that there is no precision control mechanism beyond internal attention, highlighting the close relationship between attentional and qualitative prioritization within WM. We discuss the important implications of these findings for our understanding of the fundamentals of WM and WM-driven behaviors.

Indexed as

CuesMemory, Short-TermAttentionHumansMental RecallCognitive controlRetro-cueRewardSelective attentionVisual working memory

Identifiers

PMID36536206
PMCPMC10371937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.