Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36720782›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023

Awareness of the relative quality of spatial working memory representations.

Alison Y Li, Thomas C Sprague

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Alison Y LiDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. a_li@ucsb.edu.
Thomas C SpragueDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. tsprague@ucsb.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9530-2463

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory (WM) is the ability to maintain and manipulate information no longer accessible in the environment. The brain maintains WM representations over delay periods in noisy population-level activation patterns, resulting in variability in WM representations across items and trials. It is established that participants can introspect aspects of the quality of WM representations, and that they can accurately compare which of several WM representations of stimulus features like orientation or color is better on each trial. However, whether this ability to evaluate and compare the quality of multiple WM representations extends to spatial WM tasks remains unknown. Here, we employed a memory-guided saccade task to test recall errors for remembered spatial locations when participants were allowed to choose the most precise representation to report. Participants remembered either one or two spatial locations over a delay and reported one item's location with a saccade. On trials with two spatial locations, participants reported either the spatial location of a randomly cued item, or the location of the stimulus they remembered best. We found a significant improvement in recall error and increase in response time (RT) when participants reported their best-remembered item compared with trials in which they were randomly cued. These results demonstrate that participants can accurately introspect the relative quality of neural WM representations for spatial position, consistent with previous observations for other stimulus features, and support a model of WM coding involving noisy representations across items and trials.

Indexed as

CuesMemory, Short-TermBrainHumansMental RecallReaction TimeSpatial MemoryCognitiveDecision makingEye MovementsMemoryVisual working and short-term memory

Identifiers

PMID36720782
PMCPMC10371925

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.