ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Joint attention supports working memory when gaze cues are reliable and task-relevant.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. 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.
- Gaze cues and arrow cues modulate accuracy of recall of verbal items in a working memory task.Open research Europe · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated whether attentional orienting in response to gaze cues enhances visual working memory (WM) automatically, or whether engagement of top-down processes is necessary for such effects to emerge. Building on an existing gaze-cueing paradigm, we tested whether joint attention supports WM under two conditions. In Experiment 1, participants viewed centrally presented static images of human faces displaying directional gaze cues without any instruction to use gaze direction, and gaze validity was set at 50%, making the cue spatially uninformative of stimuli location. Following the cue, a memory array was presented, followed by a retention interval and a single-probe recall. Participants had to indicate whether the probe had appeared in the initial memory set. No WM advantage was found for validly cued items. In Experiment 2, we increased cue validity to 75% and explicitly informed participants that gaze direction was highly predictive of stimuli location. Under this condition, which presumably elicited higher engagement of top-down processes, valid gaze cues significantly enhanced WM performance relative to invalid cues. Interestingly, as cognitive load increased, the limited capacity of WM slightly constrained the extent to which this strategic orienting could translate into improved memory sensitivity. These results highlight the interplay between cue reliability, attentional control, and WM capacity in determining the efficacy of gaze cues. Our findings clarify the conditions under which joint attention facilitates WM and contribute to a growing literature showing that social attention effects on higher-level cognition are context-sensitive and cognitively mediated.
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.