Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41107700›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2026

Prioritizing feature bindings across space and modality in working memory.

Hatice Cinar, Amy L Atkinson, Amanda H Waterman, Richard J Allen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Hatice CinarSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-3660-5529
Amy L AtkinsonDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Amanda H WatermanSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Richard J AllenSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. r.allen@leeds.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A growing body of evidence shows that selective attention can be strategically directed to prioritize items of higher "value" in working memory. This work has typically been limited to tests of feature binding using simple "unitized" colored shapes as memoranda. Recent research has suggested prioritization may not be effectively applied to color-odor bindings. This raises the possibility that the benefits of value-based prioritization in working memory may be limited to bindings between unitized visual features (e.g., object-color bindings, object-location bindings). The current study explored this, examining whether value-directed prioritization can be effectively applied when feature pairings of color and shape are separated out, either into different spatial locations (Experiment 1) or across visual and auditory presentation modalities (Experiment 2). Experiment 1 found an overall cost to working memory performance when features were spatially separated, relative to a unitized condition, while Experiments 2 found no such cost for cross-modal feature separation. Across the experiments, participants were equally able to derive performance benefits from prioritizing high-value items in the sequence, regardless of whether features were encountered as part of the same unitized object or separated in space (Experiment 1) or modality (Experiment 2). The findings have implications for the relationship between working memory and attention, suggesting that value-directed prioritization can be effectively applied across different types of feature binding.

Indexed as

AttentionAuditory PerceptionColor PerceptionMemory, Short-TermPattern Recognition, VisualSpace PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultBindingCross-modalityPrioritizationUnitizationWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID41107700
PMCPMC13253784

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.