Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37202586›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023

Target detection does not influence temporal memory.

Yuxi Candice Wang, Tobias Egner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Yuxi Candice WangDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. yw375@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6209-0641
Tobias EgnerDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AttentionMemory, Short-TermBayes TheoremHumansMemory, Long-TermRecognition, PsychologyAttention: Interactions with MemoryCognitive and attentional controlWorking memory

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.