ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Temporal attention modulates distraction resistance of visual working memory representations.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The regulation of Visual Working Memory (VWM) distraction resistance by internal attention remains debated with four hypotheses: the null hypothesis (attentional priorities don't affect distraction resistance), protection hypothesis (higher priority, greater distraction resistance), vulnerability hypothesis (higher priority, lower distraction resistance), and available resource threshold hypothesis (distraction resistance depends on attentional resource allocation exceed required thresholds). A recent study found that temporal attention can influence VWM priorities, yet this hasn't been explored from the perspective of temporal attention. This study used a continuous reporting task to examine these issues. Experiment 1 established stable attentional priority using an auditory cue, while Experiment 2 removed this cue to introduce dynamic priority changes. To explore neural mechanisms, Experiment 3 employed EEG to measure contingent negative variation (CNV) and decode priority representations during the delay period. Behavioral results confirmed that visual distractors increased memory deviation during maintenance, but deviations were smaller for anticipated high-priority items, suggesting better memory accuracy. High-priority items showed greater resistance to distraction at long intervals. Without the auditory cue, high-priority items resisted distraction better at short intervals. EEG results revealed enhanced CNV before long interval targets and better decoding of priority with distractors during long intervals. In summary, distraction affects different priority items equally when resources exceed requirements. High-priority items resist interference when adequately resourced but suffer if resources are insufficient, supporting the available resource threshold hypothesis. This study highlights the temporal dynamics of distraction resistance in VWM representations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39904818What 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.