ArticleScientific reports2024
The interaction of top-down and bottom-up attention in visual working memory.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Color first, space next, orientation last: A temporal comparison of retro-cue effects in visual working memory.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Joint attention supports working memory when gaze cues are reliable and task-relevant.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Sensory Modality-Dependent Interplay Between Updating and Inhibition Under Increased Working Memory Load: An ERP Study.Brain sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding the interplay between top-down and bottom-up attention in visual working memory (VWM) is crucial, although the specific challenges arising from this interaction remain ambiguous. In this study, we address this complexity by examining how cue informativeness and probe status of the salient items influence this interaction. Through three experiments, we manipulated top-down attention by varying probe frequencies using pre-cues and bottom-up attention by varying the visual salience of memory items. Experiment 1 explored cue informativeness at 100% and 50%, while Experiments 2 and 3 maintained cue informativeness at 80% and 50%. Additionally, Experiment 1 tested a few of the salient items, Experiment 2 excluded them, and Experiment 3 tested half of them in each cue condition. Across all experiments, we consistently observed cueing benefits for cue-directed items, albeit with costs to non-cued items. Furthermore, cue informativeness and the probe status of salient items emerged as critical factors influencing the interaction between top-down and bottom-up attention in VWM. These findings underscore the pivotal roles of cue informativeness and salient item relevance in shaping the dynamics of top-down and bottom-up attention within VWM.
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.