ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Exploring retro-cue effects on visual working memory: insights from double-cue paradigm.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retro-cue alerting effects on conscious perception across different levels of target visibility.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Color first, space next, orientation last: A temporal comparison of retro-cue effects in visual working memory.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the realm of visual working memory research, the retro-cue paradigm helps us study retro-cue effects such as retro-cue benefit (RCB) and retro-cue cost (RCC). RCB reflects better performance with cued items, while RCC indicates poorer performance with uncued items. Despite consistent evidence for RCB, it's still uncertain whether it remains when previously uncued items are cued afterward. Additionally, research findings have been inconsistent. This study combines prior experiments by controlling the proportion of cue types and the number of memory items. Besides, using a CDA index to assess the status of items after the cue appeared. Results showed better performance under the double-cue condition (involving two cues pointing inconsistently with only the second cue being valid) compared to the neutral-cue condition, and better performance under the single-cue condition compared to double-cue. EEG data revealed that after the appearance of the second cue in the double-cue condition, there was a significant increase in CDA wave amplitude compared to the single-cue condition. Behavior results suggests that RCB occurs under double-cue but to a lesser extent than the single-cue. And EEG outcomes indicates that individuals did not remove the uncued item from their visual working memory after the first cue. Instead, they kept it in a passive state and then shifted it to an active state after the appearance of the second cue.
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.