Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39484604›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024

Prioritizing working memory resources depends on prefrontal cortex.

Grace E Hallenbeck, Nathan Tardiff, Thomas C Sprague, Clayton E Curtis

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Grace E HallenbeckDepartment of Psychology, New York University.
Nathan TardiffDepartment of Psychology, New York University.ORCID 0000-0002-0233-8529
Thomas C SpragueDepartment of Psychology, New York University.
Clayton E CurtisDepartment of Psychology, New York University.

Funding

Putting Priority Map Theory to the TestR01EY016407 · NEI · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI CURTIS, CLAYTON E · 2006 to 2023
$5.8M
The Nature of Working Memory RepresentationsR01EY033925 · NEI · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI CURTIS, CLAYTON E · 2022 to 2025
$1.5M
Effects of behavioral priority on working memory representationsF32EY028438 · NEI · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI SPRAGUE, THOMAS C · 2017 to 2018
$77k
NEI NIH HHS F32 EY028438NEI NIH HHS R01 EY016407NEI NIH HHS R01 EY033925
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How the prefrontal cortex contributes to working memory remains controversial, as theories differ in their emphasis on its role in storing memories versus controlling their content. To adjudicate between these competing ideas, we tested how perturbations to the human (both sexes) lateral prefrontal cortex impact the storage and control aspects of working memory during a task that requires human subjects to allocate resources to memory items based on their behavioral priority. Our computational model made a strong prediction that disruption of this control process would counterintuitively improve memory for low-priority items. Remarkably, transcranial magnetic stimulation of retinotopically-defined superior precentral sulcus, but not intraparietal sulcus, unbalanced the prioritization of resources, improving memory for low-priority items as predicted by the model. Therefore, these results provide direct causal support for models in which the prefrontal cortex controls the allocation of resources that support working memory, rather than simply storing the features of memoranda.

Identifiers

PMID39484604
PMCPMC11526854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.