ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2024
Electrophysiology Reveals That Intuitive Physics Guides Visual Tracking and Working Memory.
Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 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.
- Working memory's pointer system is governed by physical objecthood, not spatiotemporal information.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- The capacity limits of moving objects in the imagination.Nature communications · 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
Starting in early infancy, our perception and predictions are rooted in strong expectations about the behavior of everyday objects. These intuitive physics expectations have been demonstrated in numerous behavioral experiments, showing that even pre-verbal infants are surprised when something impossible happens (e.g., when objects magically appear or disappear). However, it remains unclear whether and how physical expectations shape different aspects of moment-by-moment online visual scene processing, unrelated to explicit physical reasoning. In two EEG experiments, people watched short videos like those used in behavioral studies with adults and infants, and more recently in AI benchmarks. Objects moved on a stage, and were briefly hidden behind an occluder, with the scene either unfolding as expected, or violating object permanence (adding or removing an object). We measured the contralateral delay activity, an electrophysiological marker of online processing, to examine participants' working memory (WM) representations, as well as their ability to continuously track the objects in the scene. We found that both types of object permanence violations disrupted tracking, even though violations involved perceptually non-salient events (magical vanishing) or new objects that weren't previously tracked (magical creation). Physical violations caused WM to reset, i.e., to discard the original scene representation before it could recover and represent the updated number of items. Providing a physical explanation for the violations (a hole behind the occluder) restored object tracking, and we found evidence that WM continued to represent items that disappeared 'down the hole'. Our results show how intuitive physical expectations shape online representations, and form the basis of dynamic object tracking.
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.