ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023
Awareness of the relative quality of spatial working memory representations.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Neural mechanisms of resource allocation in working memory.Science advances · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.