ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
The stubborn location: Spatial location is more resistant to removal than non-spatial features in visual working memory.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Working memory (WM) removal serves the critical function of freeing up limited capacity to accommodate task-relevant information. While previous research has primarily focused on the removal of entire objects, it remains unclear whether all features within an object share a common fate during removal. In particular, given the privileged status of spatial location across various cognitive processes, it is an open question whether location information is treated differently during removal. To address this issue, we tested the stubborn-location hypothesis that spatial location would show lower removal effectiveness than non-spatial features. The alternative possibilities were that location would show either comparable or greater removal effectiveness relative to non-spatial features. Across two experiments (N = 197), participants first encoded both the spatial location and color of four items. Following a retro-cue, they were instructed to remove three items from memory. On valid trials, either the location or the color of the remaining item was tested. Critically, in low-prevalence trials, either feature of one of the removed items was tested. Results consistently supported the stubborn-location hypothesis, showing that spatial location had lower removal effectiveness in WM than color. Specifically, removal effectiveness - defined as the accuracy drop from valid to low-prevalence trials - was lower for location than for color. Furthermore, location memory remained above chance accuracy on the first low-prevalence (surprise) trials, whereas color did not. These findings were robust across both simultaneous (Experiment 1; position cue) and sequential (Experiment 2; order cue) presentation formats. Our results highlight the privileged status of location in WM removal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42690515What 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.