ArticleJournal of vision2025
The fate of visual working memory items after their job is done.
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 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
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.