ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Better close than far away: Physical distance modulates multiple retro-cues effect in working memory.
Article in Memory & cognition, 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
The retro-cue paradigm is frequently used to study how attention interacts with visual working memory (WM). In this paradigm, a single cue presented during the retention interval directs attention to a memorized item, thereby improving subsequent memory performance for that item. Recent studies have extended this approach to investigate the multiple retro-cues effect, i.e., simultaneously presenting two or more retro-cues to enhance memory performance for multiple cued items. However, the capacity limit and neural basis of this effect remain unclear. Through four experiments, we revealed that the physical distance between cued items can modulate the capacity of multiple retro-cues. Experiment 1 compared one, two neighboring (cued items presented at two contiguous locations), three neighboring, and neutral cues, revealing performance benefits only for one and two neighboring retro-cues. Experiment 2 directly compared the effect of two neighboring versus two separated cues (with one or two intervening items) and found a significant benefit only for two neighboring cues. Experiment 3 directly manipulated the spatial scope of the memory array (wide vs. narrow display) and showed that separated cues became effective when the array was presented in a narrow scope, where the absolute physical distance between cued items was reduced. Experiment 4 provided neural evidence by showing larger contralateral delay activity (CDA) with multiple cues and a complex pattern of N2pc which suggested strategic adjustment. Together, these findings delineate the quantitative boundary and spatial constraints of the multiple retro-cues effect and support the "attentional zoom-lens" mechanism of attention modulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42642616What 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.