ArticleBMC psychology2024
Comparing retro-cue benefit mechanisms in visual working memory: completely valid vs. highly valid retro-cues.
Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Load-Dependent Retrospective Attentional Benefits During Visual Working Memory.Neuroscience bulletin · 2026Article
- Color first, space next, orientation last: A temporal comparison of retro-cue effects in visual working memory.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Early or late distractions hurt working memory differently depending on how long you look.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- All identical objects reduce memory load at the late maintenance stage in working memory.Scientific reports · 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
Visual working memory (VWM) plays a crucial role in temporarily maintaining and manipulating visual information. Retro-cue benefit (RCB) refers to the enhancement of memory performance when attention is directed toward a subset of items in VWM after their initial encoding. Our recent electroencephalogram (EEG) studies indicate that cue validity affects the mechanisms underlying RCB formation. However, previous research has not thoroughly examined whether these mechanisms differ between completely valid and highly valid cue conditions. This study investigates the consistency of RCB mechanisms under conditions of complete (100%) and high (80%) retro-cue validity. We manipulated retro-cue validity and examined cognitive processing mechanisms under different validity conditions using EEG. Specifically, we focused on the N2pc component, which reflects attentional resource allocation, and the contralateral delay activity (CDA) component, which reflects the quantity of information retained in VWM. The results, encompassing both behavioral and event-related potential (ERP) findings, show that participants in both the 100% and 80% cue validity conditions exhibit robust RCB. Notably, the degree of RCB remains consistent across these conditions, indicating that participants utilize retro-cues to enhance VWM performance to the same extent. In the 80% cue validity condition, a significant retro-cue cost (RCC) was observed, indicating that participants selectively discarded uncued items from VWM. In invalid trials, response accuracy drops to chance levels, supporting the removal hypothesis. ERP results reveal that attentional resource allocation (N2pc) and the quantity of retained information (CDA) remain uniform across cue validity conditions. The mechanism responsible for RCB formation appears to involve an all-or-nothing process of discarding uncued information rather than a flexible resource allocation strategy. This study provides insights into attention allocation and information-processing mechanisms in VWM, suggesting that conclusions drawn from tasks with completely valid retro-cues can be integrated with findings from highly valid cue tasks. These findings also illuminate the flexibility of internal attentional resource allocation during RCB formation and contribute to our understanding of attention processes in 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.