ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Identical Attentional Capture with Different Working Memory Representation Precision.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Attention can be automatically captured by the distractor that matches the representation of working memory (WM) in search tasks, impairing visual search efficiency and resulting in attentional capture effects. The resource hypothesis of visual search predicts that resource allocation affects attentional capture. However, previous studies have shown partly opposing results inconsistent with this prediction. The purpose of this study is to assess the connection between attentional capture and WM resource allocation. Two experiments were conducted to combine the attentional capture paradigm with continuous delayed-estimation tasks. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the number of memory items between one and two and measured the WM representation precision as well as the magnitude of attentional capture. In Experiment 2, we manipulated resource allocation using a retro-cue task with the presentation of two memory items. In Experiment 1, the results show that when remembering one item, a single-item representation had higher precision compared to the scenario for remembering two items, and it also involved a greater allocation of WM resources. However, there was no significant difference in the magnitude of attentional capture effects between the two conditions. In Experiment 2, the results show that memory precision was higher when the cue pointed to the item compared to when it did not, but there was no significant difference in the magnitude of attentional capture effects between the cued-match and non-cued-match conditions. The findings show that the size of attentional capture effects based on WM is unaffected by the distribution of WM resources. Attentional capture effects may reflect the attention bias of WM representation that occurs in preparation stage of memory-based attentional guidance.
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.