ArticleBMC psychology2025
Coarse matching was sufficient to capture attention by working memory representations unless matching features with the target.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Perceptual distraction causes attentional but outdated information to intrude into working memory.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundIn most theoretical frameworks, the effectiveness of attentional selection relies significantly on the perceptual similarity between the target template and visual input. Nevertheless, ambiguity exists surrounding whether attentional capture triggered by irrelevant representations in Working Memory (WM) is influenced by the perceptual similarity levels of features between WM content and its matching distractors.
methodsWe designed a hybrid WM and visual search task, varying such perceptual similarity of colors across three levels: exact, high-similar, and low-similar matching. To quantify the extent of the capture effect, we compared these conditions against a neutral baseline (i.e., completely different color) using eye movement and behavioral data in two experiments.
resultsWe consistently observed robust attentional capture effects across two experiments, evident in both eye movement indices and manual reaction times. In Experiment 1, where WM representations solely matched features to visual search distractors (task-irrelevant scenario), we found that changes in perceptual similarity did not influence attentional capture. Conversely, in Experiment 2, where WM representations had the potential to match the visual search target (task-relevant scenario), we observed a significantly more robust attentional capture effect for high-similar matching compared to low-similar matching conditions.
conclusionsThese findings imply that coarse matching between distractors and WM contents is sufficient to capture attention, unless the matching features potentially correspond to the visual target. Furthermore, task relevance sharpens perceptual sensitivity to visual input, highlighting distinct mechanisms underlying attentional capture by irrelevant representations and target templates within WM.
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.