ArticleNature human behaviour2025
Errors of attention adaptively warp spatial cognition.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cerebellar perturbation impairs human working memory and degrades spatial tuning throughout cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Adaptation is the process by which we adjust internal models of the body, world and mind in response to sensory feedback. Although adaptation is studied extensively in the context of motor control, there is limited evidence that cognitive functions such as working memory are subject to the same error-driven adaptive control mechanism. To examine the possibility that internal spatial representations undergo adaptation, we had participants perform a task that interleaved a perceptual discrimination task and a spatial working memory task. Perceptual discrimination trials (85% of trials) presented an initial peripheral cue to exogenously capture attention, immediately followed by a displaced target stimulus. This sequence of events served to repeatedly induce a covert attentional allocation error. Interleaved spatial working memory trials (15% of trials) presented a stimulus at a pseudorandom peripheral location followed by a delay interval. On half of the working memory trials, the stimulus was surreptitiously presented at the same location as the initial attentional cue. We found that as attentional errors accumulated over the course of the experiment, participants' spatial recall shifted to counteract the attentional error. The magnitude of this shift was proportional to the number of induced errors. Recall performance recovered rapidly following the offset of error trials. Multiple control experiments ruled out alternative explanations for these results, such as oculomotor confounds and attentional biases unrelated to error. These findings indicate that the computational mechanisms governing the adaptation of motor commands appear to similarly serve to adjust and calibrate spatial cognition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39994457What 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.