ArticleJournal of cognitive neuroscience2024
Comparing Neural Correlates of Memory Encoding and Maintenance for Foveal and Peripheral Stimuli.
Article in Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 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.
- Serial dependence is stronger for peripheral than for central vision.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Concurrent selection of internal goals and external sensations during visual search.Science advances · 2025Article
- Fast Feature- and Category-Related Parafoveal Previewing Support Free Visual Exploration.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 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
Visual working memory is believed to rely on top-down attentional mechanisms that sustain active sensory representations in early visual cortex, a mechanism referred to as sensory recruitment. However, both bottom-up sensory input and top-down attentional modulations thereof appear to prioritize the fovea over the periphery, such that initially peripheral percepts may even be assimilated by foveal processes. This raises the question whether and how visual working memory differs for central and peripheral input. To address this, we conducted a delayed orientation recall task in which an orientation was presented either at the center of the screen or at 15° eccentricity to the left or right. Response accuracy, EEG activity, and gaze position were recorded from 30 participants. Accuracy was slightly but significantly higher for foveal versus peripheral memories. Decoding of EEG recordings revealed a clear dissociation between early sensory and later maintenance signals. Although sensory signals were clearly decodable for foveal stimuli, they were not for peripheral input. In contrast, maintenance signals were equally decodable for both foveal and peripheral memories, suggesting comparable top-down components regardless of eccentricity. Moreover, although memory representations were initially spatially specific and reflected in voltage fluctuations, later during the maintenance period, they generalized across locations, as emerged in alpha oscillations, thus revealing a dynamic transformation within memory from separate sensory traces to what we propose are common output-related codes. Furthermore, the combined absence of reliable decoding of sensory signals and robust presence of maintenance decoding indicates that storage activity patterns as measured by EEG reflect signals beyond primary visual cortex. We discuss the implications for the sensory recruitment hypothesis.
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.