Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40535114›Full record

ArticleCurrent directions in psychological science2024

Cognitive Inertia: Cyclical Interactions Between Attention and Memory Shape Learning.

Brandon M Turner, Vladimir M Sloutsky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current directions in psychological science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Brandon M TurnerDepartment of Psychology, The Ohio State University.
Vladimir M SloutskyDepartment of Psychology, The Ohio State University.

Funding

The Development of CategorizationR01HD078545 · NICHD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI SLOUTSKY, VLADIMIR M · 2014 to 2025
$4.7M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD078545
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In understanding how humans selectively attend, common frameworks often focus on how attention is allocated relative to an idealized allocation based on properties of the task. However, these perspectives often ignore different types of constraints that could help explain why attention was allocated in a particular way. For example, many computational models of learning are well equipped to explain how attention should ideally be allocated to minimize errors within the task, but these models often assume all features are perfectly encoded or that the only learning goal is to maximize accuracy. In this article, we argue for a more comprehensive view by using computational modeling to understand the complex interactions that occur between selective attention and memory. Our central thesis is that, although selective attention directs attention to relevant dimensions, relevance can only be established through memories of previous experiences. Hence, attention is initially used to encode features and create memories, but thereafter, attention operates selectively based on what is kept in memory. Through this lens, deviations from ideal performance can still be viewed as goal directed selective attention, but the orientation of attention is subject to the constraints of the individual learner.

Indexed as

category learningcognitive controleye trackingselective attention

Identifiers

PMID40535114
PMCPMC12176361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.