Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37768481›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2024

Long-term memory for distractors: Effects of involuntary attention from working memory.

Jun Moriya

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 50% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jun MoriyaFaculty of Sociology, Kansai University, 3-3-35 Yamate-cho, Suita-shi, Osaka, Japan. jmoriya@kansai-u.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0001-5148-0014
Kansai University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a visual search task, attention to task-irrelevant distractors impedes search performance. However, is it maladaptive to future performance? Here, I showed that attended distractors in a visual search task were better remembered in long-term memory (LTM) in the subsequent surprise recognition task than non-attended distractors. In four experiments, participants performed a visual search task using real-world objects of a single color. They encoded color in working memory (WM) during the task; because each object had a different color, participants directed their attention to the WM-matching colored distractor. Then, in the surprise recognition task, participants were required to indicate whether an object had been shown in the earlier visual search task, regardless of its color. The results showed that attended distractors were remembered better in LTM than non-attended distractors (Experiments 1 and 2). Moreover, the more participants directed their attention to distractors, the better they explicitly remembered them. Participants did not explicitly remember the color of the attended distractors (Experiment 3) but remembered integrated information with object and color (Experiment 4). When the color of the distractors in the recognition task was mismatched with the color in the visual search task, LTM decreased compared to color-matching distractors. These results suggest that attention to distractors impairs search for a target but is helpful in remembering distractors in LTM. When task-irrelevant distractors become task-relevant information in the future, their attention becomes beneficial.

Indexed as

Memory, Long-TermMemory, Short-TermHumansMental RecallRecognition, PsychologyVisual PerceptionAttentional guidanceLong-term memoryVisual searchWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID37768481
OpenAlexW4387114862

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.