Overt Retrospective Cues Elicit Location Specific Enhancement of Visual Working Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior studies have shown that retrospective cues presented following the offset of an initial stimulus prevent degradation of items stored in visual working memory (VWM). Whether this protective effect occurs following overt rather than covert attentional shifts remains unknown. In the present study, we examined the effect of memory facilitation for two retrospective cue types; location cues (memory tested with target stimulus at an initially presented location) and saccade cues (revisiting the location of the initial stimulus through an overt attentional shift – a saccadic eye movement). Subjects performed a change-detection task involving an array of four peripherally presented geometric shapes, and either fixated centrally or made a saccade before memory was tested for a single target shape presented centrally or peripherally. Accuracy for change detection was recorded and subsequently converted to sensitivity scores and response criterion. Our results indicated a significant enhancement in both detection sensitivity and response times when the memory target occurred in the periphery and participants made a saccade to that same location. Task performance was reduced if no saccade was made or if the target was presented centrally. Interestingly, participants shifted from a conservative criterion when the memory target location matched the eye position to a liberal criterion when target position did not match the eye position. Taken together, our results suggest that making saccade eye movements to the location of a prior stimulus can produce a location specific facilitation of VWM and modulation of response criterion. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".