Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40011340›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025

Assessing individual differences in grouping strategy in visual working memory.

Yin-Ting Lin, Andrew B Leber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yin-Ting LinDepartment of Psychology, The Ohio State University, 225 Psychology Building, 1835 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. lin.3913@osu.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5311-2952
Andrew B LeberDepartment of Psychology, The Ohio State University, 225 Psychology Building, 1835 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3537-1093

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual working memory is highly limited. Fortunately, we can use various strategies to improve performance. For example, we can make use of grouping cues, such as an illusory shape (Kanizsa figure), to optimize encoding and storage of information. However, it remains unclear how strategy use varies across individuals. In the current study, we examined whether working memory ability is related to individual differences in the use of grouping strategy. We manipulated whether the items formed Kanizsa figures or were randomly oriented in an orientation change detection task. We explicitly informed participants of the manipulation. Moreover, we independently assessed visual working memory capacity in a colour change detection task. In Experiment 1, there was better memory performance for Kanizsa figures versus randomly oriented items. Importantly, we found that individuals with higher working memory capacity showed a larger Kanizsa benefit. In Experiment 2, we still found a memory benefit for Kanizsa figures when we sequentially presented the inducers. This suggests that participants are able to use more abstract rules to strategically encode items. Furthermore, we again found that high working memory capacity corresponds to a larger Kanizsa benefit, although this finding was less robust across multiple analysis methods. Taken together, these findings show that individual differences in working memory ability predict effective use of grouping strategy. Moreover, these individual differences may partly reflect grouping based on high-level knowledge.

Indexed as

AttentionIndividualityMemory, Short-TermPattern Recognition, VisualAdultColor PerceptionCuesFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultIndividual differencesStrategy useWorking memory capacity

Identifiers

PMID40011340
PMCPMC11965235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.