ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023
Target detection does not influence temporal memory.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Target detection enhances relational processing of background items: evidence from associative recognition paradigms and EEG.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Prediction error is out of context: The dominance of contextual stability in structuring episodic memories.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Locus coeruleus activation 'resets' hippocampal event representations and separates adjacent memories.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
Target detection has been found to enhance memory for concurrently presented stimuli under dual-task conditions. This "attentional boost effect" is reminiscent of findings in the event memory literature, where conditions giving rise to event boundaries have been shown to enhance memory for boundary items. Target detection commonly requires a working memory update (e.g., adding to a covert mental target count), which is also thought to be a key contributor to creating event boundaries. However, whether target detection impacts temporal memory in similar ways as event boundaries remains unknown, because these two parallel literatures have used different types of memory tests, making direct comparisons difficult. In a preregistered experiment with sequential Bayes factor design, we examined whether target detection influences temporal binding between items by inserting target and nontarget stimuli during encoding of trial-unique object images, and then comparing subsequent temporal order and distance memory for image pairs that span a target or nontarget. We found that target detection enhanced recognition memory for target trial images but had no effect on temporal binding between items. In a follow-up experiment, we showed that when the encoding task required updating of task set rather than target count, event segmentation-related temporal memory effects were observed. These results document that target detection as such does not disrupt inter-item associations in memory, and that attention orienting in the absence of updating task sets does not create event boundaries. This suggests a key distinction between declarative and procedural working memory updates in segmenting events in memory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37202586What 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.