ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. General2025
Restoring a top-down control assumption: Salience effects in working memory are overcome with time.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. General, 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.
- Cue-driven attentional guidance nearly eliminates salience effects in working memory.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Working memory is a short-term storage space for cognitive information with a highly limited capacity. Due to this limited capacity, many theories address the issue of how items compete in working memory. The present study assesses whether the relative salience of items is automatically important or whether the deployment of working memory is more flexible than that. Some recent studies have suggested that salient stimuli are automatically prioritized in visual working memory. If true, this would suggest a fundamental inflexibility in how information is stored and remembered. We critically evaluate this claim and provide evidence favoring a more flexible account, which allows for top-down control to mitigate the influence of salience on working memory representations. Across four experiments, we support this account by demonstrating that previously observed relative salience effects on recall are not fully automatic and can be greatly reduced by allowing sufficient time to find all task-relevant objects. These findings suggest that salient objects are not inflexibly prioritized in working memory; but rather low-salience objects are difficult to find and encode, especially in large displays at brief time limits. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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.