Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37005059›Full record

ArticleCerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)2023

A matter of availability: sharper tuning for memorized than for perceived stimulus features.

Samson Chota, Surya Gayet, J Leon Kenemans, Christian N L Olivers, Stefan Van der Stigchel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Sensory reformatting for a working visual memory.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Neural dynamics of shifting attention between perception and working-memory contents.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Effects of Context Changes on Memory Reactivation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Samson ChotaExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 8, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5434-9724
Surya GayetExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 8, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
J Leon KenemansExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 8, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Christian N L OliversDepartment of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Stefan Van der StigchelExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 8, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres · DEVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our visual environment is relatively stable over time. An optimized visual system could capitalize on this by devoting less representational resources to objects that are physically present. The vividness of subjective experience, however, suggests that externally available (perceived) information is more strongly represented in neural signals than memorized information. To distinguish between these opposing predictions, we use EEG multivariate pattern analysis to quantify the representational strength of task-relevant features in anticipation of a change-detection task. Perceptual availability was manipulated between experimental blocks by either keeping the stimulus available on the screen during a 2-s delay period (perception) or removing it shortly after its initial presentation (memory). We find that task-relevant (attended) memorized features are more strongly represented than irrelevant (unattended) features. More importantly, we find that task-relevant features evoke significantly weaker representations when they are perceptually available compared with when they are unavailable. These findings demonstrate that, contrary to what subjective experience suggests, vividly perceived stimuli elicit weaker neural representations (in terms of detectable multivariate information) than the same stimuli maintained in visual working memory. We hypothesize that an efficient visual system spends little of its limited resources on the internal representation of information that is externally available anyway.

Indexed as

Memory, Short-TermVisual PerceptionEEG multivariate pattern analysisembodied cognitionperceptionworking memory

Identifiers

PMID37005059
PMCPMC10267620
OpenAlexW4362505641

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.