Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41068146›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Early or late distractions hurt working memory differently depending on how long you look.

Guofang Ren, Ruyi Liu, Lijing Guo, Penglan Liu, Dan Nie, Jinru Chen, Chaoxiong Ye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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. Article
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

7 authors.

Guofang RenSchool of Education, Anyang Normal University, Anyang, 455000, China.
Ruyi LiuDepartment of Psychology, University of Jyvaskyla, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Lijing GuoSchool of Education, Anyang Normal University, Anyang, 455000, China.
Penglan LiuDepartment of Psychology, University of Jyvaskyla, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Dan NieDepartment of Psychology, University of Jyvaskyla, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Jinru ChenInstitute of Brain and Psychological Sciences, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu, 610066, China.
Chaoxiong YeSchool of Education, Anyang Normal University, Anyang, 455000, China. cxye1988@163.com.

Funding

Research Council of Finland 355369Suomen Kulttuurirahasto 00231373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual Working Memory (VWM) is essential for temporarily retaining goal-relevant visual information, yet its limited capacity renders it vulnerable to distraction. While previous studies have examined the effects of distractors occurring during encoding or maintenance, it remains unclear how stimulus presentation duration modulates these effects and whether different types or quantities of distractors exert similar costs. Across three experiments, we systematically investigated how distraction timing, distractor content, and distraction load interact with encoding duration to influence VWM performance. In Experiment 1, participants performed continuous recall and change detection tasks under four distraction conditions (no-, encoding-, delay-, and full-distraction) and two encoding durations (short: 200 ms; long: 1000 ms). Encoding-stage distractions impaired performance only in the short-duration, high-precision task, whereas delay-stage distractions consistently disrupted memory regardless of duration or task type. Experiment 2 manipulated distractor-target similarity (same-category vs. different-category distractors) and revealed that homogeneous distractors exerted stronger disruption, particularly when presented during the delay period. In contrast, heterogeneous distractors could be effectively suppressed when sufficient encoding time allowed for robust consolidation. Experiment 3 examined perceptual load (low vs. high) and showed that increasing distractor quantity did not amplify interference, suggesting that once memory consolidation is complete, delay-stage distractions disrupt VWM representations regardless of distractor load. Together, these findings reveal an asymmetry in how VWM handles distractions at different processing stages. While extended encoding supports resistance to early distraction, maintenance-stage distractions exert persistent effects-especially when distractors are similar to targets. Our results highlight the importance of presentation duration and distractor similarity in shaping VWM robustness, and suggest that distinct cognitive mechanisms may underlie suppression at encoding and maintenance stages.

Indexed as

AttentionMemory, Short-TermVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleMental RecallPhotic StimulationTime FactorsYoung AdultDelay stageDistractor filteringEncoding stageStimulus presentation durationVisual short-term memory

Identifiers

PMID41068146
PMCPMC12511591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.