ArticleeLife2024
Jointly looking to the past and the future in visual working memory.
Article in eLife, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inferential planning in the frontal cortex.Cell reports · 2026Article
- The stubborn location: Spatial location is more resistant to removal than non-spatial features in visual working memory.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Sparse Spatial Scaffolding for Visual Working Memory.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Evidence for Abstract Codes in Parietal Cortex Guiding Prospective Working Memory.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Sensory reformatting for a working visual memory.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025Review
- Concurrent selection of internal goals and external sensations during visual search.Science advances · 2025Article
- Looking into Working Memory to Verify Potential Search Targets.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Microsaccades strongly modulate but do not directly cause the EEG N2pc marker of spatial attention.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Attention Dynamics in Spatial-Temporal Contexts.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Microsaccade biases can reflect task-specific spatial memorization strategies.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Attentional shifts bias microsaccade direction but do not cause new microsaccades.Communications psychology · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- The Intensity of Internal and External Attention Assessed with Pupillometry.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Working memory enables us to bridge past sensory information to upcoming future behaviour. Accordingly, by its very nature, working memory is concerned with two components: the past and the future. Yet, in conventional laboratory tasks, these two components are often conflated, such as when sensory information in working memory is encoded and tested at the same location. We developed a task in which we dissociated the past (encoded location) and future (to-be-tested location) attributes of visual contents in working memory. This enabled us to independently track the utilisation of past and future memory attributes through gaze, as observed during mnemonic selection. Our results reveal the joint consideration of past and future locations. This was prevalent even at the single-trial level of individual saccades that were jointly biased to the past and future. This uncovers the rich nature of working memory representations, whereby both past and future memory attributes are retained and can be accessed together when memory contents become relevant for behaviour.
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.