ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2025
What are the benefits of directed attention within verbal working memory?
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The consequences of strategic prioritization in working memory.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Prioritizing feature bindings across space and modality in working memory.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Refreshing boosts memory but does not protect it against interference.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Reward-based prioritization in working memory is distinct from recency and due to a resource trade-off.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- The Ability to Direct Attention in Working Memory Is Not Impaired in Adults With Symptoms of ADHD.Journal of attention disorders · 2025Article
- An Examination of Distractor Susceptibility of Prioritized and Unprioritized Information in Visual Working Memory.Journal of cognition · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Information that is particularly relevant for upcoming behaviour can be prioritised within working memory, by directing attention to it. Receiving focused attention during retention is assumed to be associated with specific benefits, such as increased memory performance and reduced vulnerability to perceptual distractions. This has been demonstrated in visuospatial working memory. Given the domain-general nature of the focus of attention, these benefits should extend to verbal working memory as well. This was tested in the current study. In particular, we examined and compared the effects of cue-based and reward-based prioritisation in verbal working memory across a series of five preregistered experiments. These experiments varied in their memory materials, set size, interference, and memory task. Our results collectively revealed several key findings. First, both cue-based and reward-based prioritisation led to a clear and consistent memory boost for prioritised information in verbal working memory. Second, the memory boost induced by cue-based prioritisation was mostly comparable to that induced by reward-based prioritisation. Third, memory for verbal information did not drastically suffer when exposed to perceptual interference. And finally, the effect of perceptual interference on verbal information was not drastically influenced by whether the information was prioritised or not. Overall, this series of experiments contributes to understanding the consequences of directed attention in verbal working memory and highlights similarities and differences from findings in visuospatial working memory.
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.