ArticlePsychological research2026
Retrospective attention suppresses reward-associated interference in visual working memory.
Article in Psychological research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Retrospective cues are thought to prioritize goal-relevant representations in visual working memory, yet whether they actively suppress interference from reward-associated non-targets remains unclear. We combined a reward-association training phase with a retro-cue paradigm across two eye-tracking experiments to test how retrospective attention regulates value-driven distraction within memory. When non-reward stimuli were absent during training (Experiment 1), high-reward items produced smaller adjustment errors, lower guess rates, and higher precision than low-reward items, with no reliable target-non-target difference, indicating strong value-based competition. When non-reward stimuli were included during training (Experiment 2), high-low reward differences disappeared, whereas targets outperformed non-targets on error and precision, consistent with retro-cue-based selection. Microsaccade analyses showed that, irrespective of training, post-cue gaze dynamics favored targets. Critically, in Experiment 1, when reward stimuli served as non-targets, microsaccades were less frequently directed toward high-reward than low-reward distractors, providing direct oculomotor evidence for suppression of value-laden interference; this difference was absent in Experiment 2. Together, these results indicate that retrospective attention suppresses reward-associated interference within working memory, and that this suppression is gated by stimulus novelty introduced during training. The findings link behavioral precision and oculomotor dynamics to an active suppression mechanism that controls value-driven distraction after encoding, offering a principled account of how internal attention resolves competition among mnemonic representations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41910811What 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.