ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Reappearing sensory input guides visual working memory prioritization.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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.
- Dissociating external and internal attentional selection.iScience · 2025Article
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
Adaptive behavior necessitates the prioritization of the most relevant information in the environment (external) and in memory (internal). Internal prioritization is known to guide the selection of external sensory input, but the reverse may also be possible: Does the environment guide the prioritization of memorized material? Here, we addressed whether reappearing sensory input could facilitate the prioritization of other nonreappearing memorized items held in visual working memory (VWM). Participants (total n = 96) memorized three orientations. Crucially some, but not all, items maintained in VWM were made available again in the environment. These reappearing items never had to be reproduced later. Experiment 1 showed that the reappearance of all but one memory item benefited accuracy and speed to the same extent as a spatial retro cue. This shows that reappearing items allow for the dynamic prioritization of another nonreappearing memorized item. What aspects of the reappearing sensory input drive this effect? Experiments 2-4 demonstrated that prioritization was facilitated most if reappearing items matched VWM content in terms of both location and orientation. Sensory input fully matching VWM is possibly processed more efficiently and/or protects against interference, ultimately leading to stronger prioritization of other memory content. We propose that the link between sensory processing and VWM is bidirectional: internal representations guide the processing of sensory input, which in turn facilitates the prioritization of other VWM content to subserve adaptive behavior. All data and analysis scripts are available online ( https://osf.io/qzvkc/ ).
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.