ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Self-prioritization in working memory gating.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Working memory (WM) involves a dynamic interplay between temporary maintenance and updating of goal-relevant information. The balance between maintenance and updating is regulated by an input-gating mechanism that determines which information should enter WM (gate opening) and which should be kept out (gate closing). We investigated whether updating and gate opening/closing are differentially sensitive to the kind of information to be encoded and maintained in WM. Specifically, since the social salience of a stimulus is known to affect cognitive performance, we investigated if self-relevant information differentially impacts maintenance, updating, or gate opening/closing. Participants first learned to associate two neutral shapes with two social labels (i.e., "you" vs. "stranger"), respectively. Subsequently they performed the reference-back paradigm, a well-established WM task that disentangles WM updating, gate opening, and gate closing. Crucially, the shapes previously associated with the self or a stranger served as target stimuli in the reference-back task. We replicated the typical finding of a repetition benefit when consecutive trials require opening the gate to WM. In Study 1 (N = 45) this advantage disappeared when self-associated stimuli were recently gated into WM and immediately needed to be replaced by stranger-associated stimuli. However, this was not replicated in a larger sample (Study 2; N = 90), where a repetition benefit always occurred on consecutive gate-opening trials. Overall, our results do not provide evidence that the self-relevance of stimuli modulates component processes of WM. We discuss possible reasons for this null finding, including the importance of continuous reinstatement and task-relevance of the shape-label associations.
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.