ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Manipulating attentional priority creates a trade-off between memory and sensory representations in human visual cortex.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Successful Prediction Is Associated With Enhanced Encoding.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People often remember visual information over brief delays while actively engaging with ongoing inputs from the surrounding visual environment. Depending on the situation, one might prioritize mnemonic contents (i.e., remembering details of a past event), or preferentially attend sensory inputs (i.e., minding traffic while crossing a street). Previous fMRI work has shown that early sensory regions can simultaneously represent both mnemonic and passively viewed sensory information. Here we test the limits of such simultaneity by manipulating attention towards sensory distractors during a working memory task performed by human subjects during fMRI scanning. Participants remembered the orientation of a target grating while a distractor grating was shown during the middle portion of the memory delay. Critically, there were several subtle changes in the contrast and the orientation of the distractor, and participants were cued to either ignore the distractor, detect a change in contrast, or detect a change in orientation. Despite sensory stimulation being matched in all three conditions, the fidelity of memory representations in early visual cortex was highest when the distractor was ignored, intermediate when participants attended distractor contrast, and lowest when participants attended the orientation of the distractor during the delay. In contrast, the fidelity of distractor representations was lowest when ignoring the distractor, intermediate when attending distractor-contrast, and highest when attending distractor-orientation. These data suggest a trade-off in early sensory representations when engaging top-down feedback to attend both seen and remembered features and may partially explain memory failures that occur when subjects are distracted by external events.
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.