ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Memory-guided selective attention: Evidence for context-specific control using the trial-unique Stroop task.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stroop effects can be influenced by context-specific cues associated with varying levels of proportion congruency, even for items that occur with equal frequency in each context. This theoretically important result points to the involvement of a cue-driven memory process in the dynamic updating of selective attention. However, attempts to replicate this result have been challenging, potentially due to limitations or confounds in the experimental design, or difficulties in inducing context-specific learning due to item-specific cues. The present study aimed to reevaluate the memory-guided hypothesis using the trial-unique Stroop paradigm, where each trial consists of a unique stimulus and response that never reappear throughout the experiment, thereby preventing trial-to-trial associative regularities. One context was associated with high conflict (20% proportion congruency), and the other with low conflict (80% proportion congruency). Experiment 1 demonstrated that trials within the low-conflict context exhibited larger congruency effects compared with those in the high-conflict context, aligning with the memory-guided selective attention hypothesis that attentional priorities become associated with contextual cues and are automatically reinstated through memory retrieval. Experiment 2 replicated this finding and examined whether both auditory and visual context cues were necessary by assigning participants to combined auditory-visual, auditory-only, or visual-only conditions. The context-specific proportion congruency effect was successfully replicated in both the combined and visual-only conditions, but not in the auditory-only condition, suggesting that visual contextual cues may be more effective than auditory cues. These findings provide compelling evidence for memory-guided selective attention while revealing important boundary conditions regarding contextual cue effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42204084What 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.