ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Color first, space next, orientation last: A temporal comparison of retro-cue effects in visual working memory.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. 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.
- Early or late distractions hurt working memory differently depending on how long you look.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Retro-cues can enhance performance in visual working memory (VWM) tasks by directing internal attention to relevant items. While spatial retro-cues have been extensively studied, less is known about how different types of feature retro-cues (e.g., color, orientation) compare in effectiveness and temporal dynamics. Across four experiments, we directly contrasted spatial, color, and orientation retro-cues in dual-feature memory tasks and systematically varied cue-probe delays (50-650 ms) to track the time course of retro-cue benefits (RCBs). Results revealed a processing speed hierarchy: color retro-cues elicited larger benefit than spatial retro-cue at the shortest delays (50 ms), followed by spatial retro-cues (200 ms), whereas orientation retro-cues required longer delays (500 ms or more). Notably, color retro-cues produced stronger or more rapid RCBs than spatial cues, suggesting they engage attentional mechanisms more efficiently. In contrast, orientation retro-cues were ineffective unless participants were explicitly required to encode both features. These findings indicate that different retro-cue types differ not only in efficacy but also in how quickly they can modulate memory performance, reflecting feature-specific constraints in attentional selection and cue encoding. Our results challenge the assumption that all feature cues operate uniformly and highlight the importance of considering cue type, task goals, and retrieval context in models of selective attention within working memory.
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.