ArticleJournal of cognition2025
An Examination of Distractor Susceptibility of Prioritized and Unprioritized Information in Visual Working Memory.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Working Memory States Modulate Arithmetic Estimation Strategy Processing: Evidence from Visual and Articulatory Interference.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The consequences of strategic prioritization in working memory.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Refreshing boosts memory but does not protect it against interference.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- When similarity is less disruptive: feature-sharing distractors in visual working memory under diffuse attention.Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This report presents three behavioral experiments examining how different approaches of attentional prioritization influence distractor susceptibility in visual working memory (WM). We used three prioritization approaches: spontaneous, cued-based, and reward-based. In Experiments 1a and 1b, which involved spontaneous prioritization, we found that the distractor susceptibility of the last memory item - often assumed to be in the focus of attention - did not differ from that of other items in WM. In Experiment 2, cue-based prioritization was associated with reduced distractor susceptibility for the cued item, whereas reward-based prioritization showed no such effect for the highly-rewarded item, regardless of when the priority signal was presented (before, during, or after encoding). Thus, across these three experiments, prioritization was found to either reduce or have no effect on distractor susceptibility, but never to increase it. This dataset provides a basis for further investigation into the interaction between attention and interference in WM under different prioritization approaches.
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.