ArticlePsychological medicine2025
Impaired visuospatial working memory but preserved attentional control in bipolar disorder.
Article in Psychological medicine, 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.
- Bipolar Disorder Psychosis Risk Predicts Cue Discrimination on the AX-Continuous Performance Task Paradigm.Bipolar disorders · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeficits in working memory (WM) and attention have a considerable functional impact on people with bipolar disorder (PBD). Understanding the neurocognitive underpinnings of these cognitive constructs might facilitate the discovery of more effective pro-cognitive interventions. Therefore, we employed a paradigm designed for jointly studying attentional control and WM encoding.
methodsWe used a visuospatial change-detection task using four Gabor Patches with differing orientations in 63 euthymic PBD and 76 healthy controls (HCS), which investigated attentional competition during WM encoding. To manipulate bottom-up attention using stimulus salience, two Gabor patches flickered, which were designated as either targets or distractors. To manipulate top-down attention, the Gabor patches were preceded by either a predictive or a non-predictive cue for the target locations.
resultsAcross all task conditions, PBD stored significantly less information in visual WM than HCS (significant effect of group). However, we observed no significant group-by-salience or group-by-cue interactions. This indicates that impaired WM was not caused by deficits in attentional control.
conclusionsWhile WM was disturbed in PBD, attentional prioritization of salient targets and distractors, as well as the utilization of external top-down cues, were not compromised. Thus, the control of attentional selection appears to be intact at least for our specific manipulation of this cognitive construct. These findings provide valuable clues for models of WM dysfunction in PBD by suggesting that later stages of WM encoding, such as WM consolidation, are likely primarily impaired, while selective attention is not a main source of impairment.
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.