Working memory
What happens to the things in working memory we are not attending to?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
When attention is focused on one remembered item, nearby unattended items are not stored less precisely, but they are more likely to be swapped into the wrong location.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Human experiment — Within-subject retro-cue colour-recall experiments: continuous colour-wheel report (Exp 1, four items) and categorical five-colour report (Exp 2), 80% valid cues.
- N
- Experiment 1: 21 students recruited, 20 analysed after one did not finish the second session; Experiment 2: 20 different students.
- Population
- Ghent University students with normal colour vision
- Outcome
- Recall error; mixture-model precision, guessing and distance-specific misbinding (swap) rates; categorical error proportions by non-target distance
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Valid cues reduced recall error and raised the chance of reporting the correct item, confirming the cue worked. The precision of uncued items did not change with distance from the cued location. Swap errors, however, fell steadily as non-targets got further from the probed location, and this gradient was steeper when attention had to shift to a location close to the cued one. Experiment 2 replicated the distance gradient in swaps without any modelling, though there the gradient did not differ between valid and invalid cues.
Methodology
Students saw arrays of coloured discs, then a retro-cue pointed to one remembered location before a probe asked for the colour at one location. On 80% of trials the cue was valid, and on invalid trials the researchers varied how far the probe was from the cued spot. In Experiment 1 people picked the colour on a continuous colour wheel and a mixture model split their errors into precision, random guessing and swaps with non-targets at each distance; Experiment 2 used five clearly distinct colours so swaps could be counted directly.
Limitations
Each experiment tested only about 20 mostly female students, so the precision null result could reflect limited power. The authors note the model was fitted to fewer than 50 trials per condition, which may make parameter estimates unreliable, and that the outermost positions were tested more often at the largest distance, possibly biasing how people prioritised them. The high cue validity (80%) may have encouraged people to neglect uncued items, so the conclusions may not hold with less reliable cues. The account that items are stored as abstract gist is explicitly speculative.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.