Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40238137›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2025

The fate of visual working memory items after their job is done.

Zachary Hamblin-Frohman, Jay Pratt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Zachary Hamblin-FrohmanDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Jay PrattDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual working memory is a competitive, capacity-limited system for the storage of feature and object-based information. In change-detection tasks, items are encoded into memory and, after a retention period, are compared against a test set. Loss of information can occur from attentional interference or prioritizing some items over others. But what happens to the memory representations after the change-detection task is completed? The current article examines the fate of a memory item after its behavioral purpose has been fulfilled. Participants encoded a single item in memory for a difficult change-detection task. Visual search trials were presented both before and after the memory test was completed. Singleton distractors were present in these search trials that could match or not the memory item. In Experiment 1, memory-driven capture (the memory-matching distractors led to longer search response times than the unrelated distractor) was observed in the pre-memory test and, in a weaker form, the post-test search trials. In Experiment 2, we introduced cues that indicated the memory test would not occur on a subset of trials, controlling for re-exposure to the memory stimulus. Memory-driven capture was again observed for these post-cue search trials, but only at a short time interval, at a longer interval this effect was attenuated. These results suggest that the memory representations only linger briefly in the visual system.

Indexed as

AttentionMemory, Short-TermPattern Recognition, VisualVisual PerceptionAdultCuesFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationReaction TimeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40238137
PMCPMC12011125

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.