ArticleScientific reports2024
A computational approach to the N-back task.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial anisotropy in crowding and ensemble perception.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Unexpected higher resilience to distraction during visual working memory in schizophrenia.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The N-back task is one of the most popular paradigms for studying the cognitive mechanisms of working memory (WM). The task requires the observer to view a sequence of stimuli and judge whether the current stimulus (probe) matches the one presented N stimuli ago (target). A key phenomenon is that the intervening stimuli (distractors) interfere with task performance. Unfortunately, the classic N-back task uses complex categorical stimuli, making it unfit to quantify the effect of feature similarity on interference strength. Here, we introduce the "analog N-back task", which utilizes stimuli varying continuously in orientation or color. This task variant enables us to measure interference strength on a continuum, providing data suitable for identifying the sources of interference using computational models. In the analog 2-back task, we found that interference increased with feature similarity between the probe and both task-relevant (1-back) and task-irrelevant (3-back) distractors. We next developed and evaluated three main models that each incorporated a Bayesian decision step and differed from an optimal non-interference model in one component only: an early-pooling model, a late-pooling model, and a substitution model. Model comparison suggests that interference emerges late in processing, most likely due to confusion between stimuli during WM retrieval. Our work puts the study of interference in the N-back task on a firmer computational footing and provides a unified framework for examining the sources of interference across domains.
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.