ArticleJournal of vision2025
Low-priority items are held in visual working memory: Evidence from flexible allocation in a two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) paradigm.
Article in Journal of vision, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual working memory (VWM) is characterized as extremely capacity limited. This finding is supported by the dramatic decline in change detection performance beyond a small number of items, as well as the observation of flat error distributions in delayed-estimation tasks. However, continuous resource models predict that small amounts of memory resources can be distributed to items at the expense of memory resolution (resulting in low response precision). These low-resolution memory representations should have nearly flat error distributions that could appear indistinguishable from uniform guessing distributions. In the current study, memory resource allocation was manipulated by varying the probability of an item being probed at recall. Responses were intermixed between continuous response and two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) trials to examine whether these low-probability items could produce above-chance performance, consistent with them being held in memory. For comparison with the distribution of continuous responses, the magnitude of the discrimination between the target and lure colors was manipulated. Accuracy on the 2AFC trials was sensitive to both discrimination difficulty and probe probability manipulations. Critically, above-chance performance was found in the lowest probe probability condition (10% probe probability, equivalent to an item load of 10), suggesting that this condition had low-resolution memory representations rather than no memory representations. These findings are consistent with the predictions of continuous resource models and applications of signal detection models of VWM.
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.