ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2024
Ocular working memory signals are flexible to behavioral priority and subjective imagery strength.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Windows to the goal: Pupillary working memory signatures prospectively adapt to task demands.iScience · 2026Article
- Sensory reformatting for a working visual memory.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025Review
- Attentional shifts bias microsaccade direction but do not cause new microsaccades.Communications psychology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The pupillary light response was long considered a brainstem reflex, outside of cognitive influence. However, newer findings indicate that pupil dilation (and eye movements) can reflect content held "in mind" with working memory (WM). These findings may reshape understanding of ocular and WM mechanisms, but it is unclear whether the signals are artifactual or functional to WM. Here, we ask whether peripheral and oculomotor WM signals are sensitive to the task-relevance or "attentional state" of WM content. During eye-tracking, human participants saw both dark and bright WM stimuli, then were retroactively cued to the item that would most likely be tested. Critically, we manipulated the attentional priority among items by varying the cue reliability across blocks. We confirmed previous findings that remembering darker items is associated with larger pupils (vs. brighter), and that gaze is biased toward cued item locations. Moreover, we discovered that pupil and eye movement responses were influenced differently by WM item relevance. Feature-specific pupillary effects emerged only for highly prioritized WM items but were eliminated when cues were less reliable, and pupil effects also increased with self-reported visual imagery strength. Conversely, gaze position consistently veered toward the cued item location, regardless of cue reliability. However, biased microsaccades occurred at a higher frequency when cues were more reliable, though only during a limited post-cue time window. Therefore, peripheral sensorimotor processing is sensitive to the task-relevance or functional state of internal WM content, but pupillary and eye movement WM signals show distinct profiles. These results highlight a potential role for early visual processing in maintaining multiple WM content dimensions.
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.