ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2025
Motor Control Processes Moderate Visual Working Memory Gating.
Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Gating processes that regulate sensory input into visual working memory (WM) and the execution of planned actions share neural mechanisms, suggesting a mutual interaction. In a preregistered study (Open Science Framework), we examined how this interaction may result in sensory interference during WM storage using a delayed match-to-sample task. Participants (12 males, 20 females) memorized the color of a target stimulus for later report on a color wheel. The shape of the target indicated which hand they would adjust the color wheel with. During the retention interval, an interference task was presented, requiring a response with either the same or different hand as the main task. In half of the interference trials, the interfering task cue was also colored to introduce visual interference. EEG results showed early motor planning during sensory encoding, evidenced by mu/beta suppression contralateral to the responding hand. The interference task only impaired WM performance when it included an irrelevant color, indicating that the interference effect was primarily driven by the irrelevant sensory information. In addition, color reporting in the WM task was biased toward the irrelevant color. This was more pronounced when both tasks were performed with the same hand, suggesting a selective gating mechanism dependent on motor control processes. This effect was mitigated by a control mechanism, which was evident in frontal theta activity, where higher power predicted lower bias on the single-trial level. Our findings thus reveal that sensory WM updating can be induced by interfering motor actions, which can be compensated by a reactive control mechanism.
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.