Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41366158›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Reward-based prioritization in working memory is distinct from recency and due to a resource trade-off.

Timothy J Ricker, Christopher J Cagna, Tien T Tong, Ekaterina Dobryakova, Joshua Sandry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 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

5 authors.

Timothy J RickerDepartment of Psychology, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA. Timothy.Ricker@usd.edu.
Christopher J CagnaCenter for Traumatic Brain Injury Research, Kessler Foundation, East Hanover, NJ, USA.
Tien T TongPerelman School of Medicine, The University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Ekaterina DobryakovaCenter for Traumatic Brain Injury Research, Kessler Foundation, East Hanover, NJ, USA.
Joshua SandryPsychology Department, Montclair State University, 1 Normal Ave, Montclair, NJ, 07043, USA. sandryj@montclair.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prioritized items within working memory often show higher accuracy or faster response times at test. This prioritization benefit is thought to reflect the memory representation being within the focus of attention. The literature on prioritization effects lacks consistency in whether prioritization benefits manifest as a benefit to speed, accuracy, or both, implying that some findings may reflect a speed-accuracy tradeoff rather than improved memory representation. In the present work, we use drift-diffusion modeling to test two theoretical questions regarding prioritization effects without the possibility of a confounding speed-accuracy tradeoff. First, we test whether prioritization effects rely on shifting limited working memory resources away from non-prioritized items. Second, we test whether prioritization and recency effects are two distinct mechanisms or two ways to enter the focus of attention. We find that prioritization effects do reflect shifts in limited working memory resources and that prioritization and recency are two distinct mechanisms. These findings are augmented by model fits suggesting differential effects of prioritization at the perceptual/motor and cognitive levels.

Indexed as

AttentionMemory, Short-TermRewardAdultHumansModels, PsychologicalReaction TimeYoung AdultDrift diffusion modelFocus of attentionPrioritizationRecency effectRewardWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID41366158
PMCPMC12689727

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.