Abstract
The ability to sustain internal representations of the sensory environment beyond immediate perception is a fundamental requirement of cognitive processing. In recent years, debates regarding the capacity and fidelity of the working memory (WM) system have advanced our understanding of the nature of these representations. In particular, there is growing recognition that WM representations are not merely imperfect copies of a perceived object or event. New experimental tools have revealed that observers possess richer information about the uncertainty in their memories and take advantage of environmental regularities to use limited memory resources optimally. Meanwhile, computational models of visuospatial WM formulated at different levels of implementation have converged on common principles relating capacity to variability and uncertainty. Here we review recent research on human WM from a computational perspective, including the neural mechanisms that support it.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Wade, N. & Swanston, M. Visual Perception: An Introduction (Psychology Press, 2013).
Knill, D. C. & Pouget, A. The Bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends Neurosci. 27, 712–719 (2004).
Cowan, N. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behav. Brain Sci. 24, 87–114 (2001).
Trommershauser, J., Kording, K. & Landy, M. S. Sensory Cue Integration (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).
Rademaker, R. L., Tredway, C. H. & Tong, F. Introspective judgments predict the precision and likelihood of successful maintenance of visual working memory. J. Vis. 12, 21 (2012).
Yoo, A. H., Klyszejko, Z., Curtis, C. E. & Ma, W. J. Strategic allocation of working memory resource. Sci. Rep. 8, 16162 (2018).
Honig, M., Ma, W. J. & Fougnie, D. Humans incorporate trial-to-trial working memory uncertainty into rewarded decisions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 8391–8397 (2020).
Jabar, S. B. et al. Probabilistic and rich individual working memories revealed by a betting game. Sci. Rep. 13, 20912 (2023).
Acerbi, L., Vijayakumar, S. & Wolpert, D. M. On the origins of suboptimality in human probabilistic inference. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003661 (2014).
Keshvari, S., Van den Berg, R. & Ma, W. J. Probabilistic computation in human perception under variability in encoding precision. PLoS ONE 7, e40216 (2012).
Yoo, A. H., Acerbi, L. & Ma, W. J. Uncertainty is maintained and used in working memory. J. Vis. 21, 13 (2021).
Devkar, D., Wright, A. A. & Ma, W. J. Monkeys and humans take local uncertainty into account when localizing a change. J. Vis. 17, 4 (2017).
Meyniel, F., Sigman, M. & Mainen, Z. F. Confidence as Bayesian probability: from neural origins to behavior. Neuron 88, 78–92 (2015).
Fleming, S. M. & Daw, N. D. Self-evaluation of decision-making: a general Bayesian framework for metacognitive computation. Psychol. Rev. 124, 91–114 (2017).
Yeon, J. & Rahnev, D. The suboptimality of perceptual decision making with multiple alternatives. Nat. Commun. 11, 3857 (2020).
Oberauer, K. & Lin, H.-Y. An interference model of visual working memory. Psychol. Rev. 124, 21–59 (2017).
Swan, G. & Wyble, B. The binding pool: a model of shared neural resources for distinct items in visual working memory. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 76, 2136–2157 (2014).
Schneegans, S. & Bays, P. M. Neural architecture for feature binding in visual working memory. J. Neurosci. 37, 3913–3925 (2017).
Bays, P. M. Noise in neural populations accounts for errors in working memory. J. Neurosci. 34, 3632–3645 (2014).
Pouget, A., Dayan, P. & Zemel, R. Information processing with population codes. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 1, 125–132 (2000).
Ohshiro, T., Angelaki, D. E. & DeAngelis, G. C. A normalization model of multisensory integration. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 775–782 (2011).
Reynolds, J. H. & Heeger, D. J. The normalization model of attention. Neuron 61, 168–185 (2009).
Bays, P. M. A signature of neural coding at human perceptual limits. J. Vis. 16, 4 (2016).
Van den Berg, R., Yoo, A. H. & Ma, W. J.Fechner’s law in metacognition: a quantitative model of visual working memory confidence. Psychol. Rev. 124, 197–214 (2017).
Li, H.-H., Sprague, T. C., Yoo, A. H., Ma, W. J. & Curtis, C. E. Joint representation of working memory and uncertainty in human cortex. Neuron 109, 3699–3712.e6 (2021).
Ma, W. J., Beck, J. M., Latham, P. E. & Pouget, A. Bayesian inference with probabilistic population codes. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 1432–1438 (2006).
Jazayeri, M. & Movshon, J. A. Optimal representation of sensory information by neural populations. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 690–696 (2006).
Van Bergen, R. & Jehee, J. TAFKAP: an improved method for probabilistic decoding of cortical activity. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.04.433946 (2021).
Schneegans, S., Taylor, R. & Bays, P. M. Stochastic sampling provides a unifying account of visual working memory limits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 20959–20968 (2020).
Palmer, J. Attentional limits on the perception and memory of visual information. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 16, 332–350 (1990).
Zhang, W. & Luck, S. J. Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory. Nature 453, 233–235 (2008).
Sewell, D. K., Lilburn, S. D. & Smith, P. L. An information capacity limitation of visual short-term memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 40, 2214–2242 (2014).
Shaw, M. L. in Attention and Performance VIII 277–295 (Taylor & Francis Group, 1980).
Ma, W. J. & Huang, W. No capacity limit in attentional tracking: evidence for probabilistic inference under a resource constraint. J. Vis. 9, 3 (2009).
Vul, E., Alvarez, G., Tenenbaum, J. & Black, M. Explaining human multiple object tracking as resource-constrained approximate inference in a dynamic probabilistic model. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 22, 1955–1963 (2009).
Schurgin, M. W., Wixted, J. T. & Brady, T. F. Psychophysical scaling reveals a unified theory of visual memory strength. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1156–1172 (2020).
Kriegeskorte, N. & Wei, X.-X. Neural tuning and representational geometry. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 22, 703–718 (2021).
Tomić, I. & Bays, P. M. Perceptual similarity judgments do not predict the distribution of errors in working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 50, 535–549 (2024).
Van den Berg, R., Shin, H., Chou, W.-C., George, R. & Ma, W. J. Variability in encoding precision accounts for visual short-term memory limitations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8780–8785 (2012).
Mazyar, H., Van den Berg, R. & Ma, W. J. Does precision decrease with set size? J. Vis. 12, 10 (2012).
Keshvari, S., Van den Berg, R. & Ma, W. J. No evidence for an item limit in change detection. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1002927 (2013).
Van den Berg, R., Awh, E. & Ma, W. J. Factorial comparison of working memory models. Psychol. Rev. 121, 124–149 (2014).
Williams, J. R., Robinson, M. M., Schurgin, M., Wixted, J. & Brady, T. You cannot “count” how many items people remember in working memory: the importance of signal detection-based measures for understanding change detection performance. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 48, 1390–1409 (2022).
Adam, K. C., Vogel, E. K. & Awh, E. Clear evidence for item limits in visual working memory. Cogn. Psychol. 97, 79–97 (2017).
Wilken, P. & Ma, W. J. A detection theory account of change detection. J. Vis. 4, 11 (2004).
Johnson, J. S., Spencer, J. P., Luck, S. J. & Schöner, G. A dynamic neural field model of visual working memory and change detection. Psychol. Sci. 20, 568–577 (2009).
Schneegans, S., Spencer, J. P. & Schöner, G. in Dynamic Thinking: A Primer on Dynamic Field Theory 197–226 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).
Emrich, S. M., Lockhart, H. A. & Al-Aidroos, N. Attention mediates the flexible allocation of visual working memory resources. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 43, 1454–1465 (2017).
Gorgoraptis, N., Catalao, R. F. G., Bays, P. M. & Husain, M. Dynamic updating of working memory resources for visual objects. J. Neurosci. 31, 8502–8511 (2011).
Rajsic, J., Sun, S. Z., Huxtable, L., Pratt, J. & Ferber, S. Pop-out and pop-in: visual working memory advantages for unique items. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 1787–1793 (2016).
Klyszejko, Z., Rahmati, M. & Curtis, C. E. Attentional priority determines working memory precision. Vis. Res. 105, 70–76 (2014).
Brissenden, J. A., Adkins, T. J., Hsu, Y. T. & Lee, T. G. Reward influences the allocation but not the availability of resources in visual working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 152, 1825–1839 (2023).
Gong, M. & Li, S. Learned reward association improves visual working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 40, 841–856 (2014).
Carandini, M. & Heeger, D. J. Normalization as a canonical neural computation. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 13, 51–62 (2012).
Lieder, F. & Griffiths, T. L.Resource-rational analysis: understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources. Behav. Brain Sci. 43, e1 (2020).
Van den Berg, R. & Ma, W. J. A resource-rational theory of set size effects in human visual working memory. eLife 7, e34963 (2018).
Van den Berg, R., Zou, Q., Li, Y. & Ma, W. J. No effect of monetary reward in a visual working memory task. PLoS ONE 18, e0280257 (2023).
Bengson, J. J. & Luck, S. J. Effects of strategy on visual working memory capacity. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 265–270 (2016).
Mystakidou, M. & van den Berg, R. More motivated but equally good: no effect of gamification on visual working memory performance. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.12.903203 (2020).
Yoo, A. H. & Collins, A. G. How working memory and reinforcement learning are intertwined: a cognitive, neural, and computational perspective. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 34, 551–568 (2022).
Collins, A. G. & Frank, M. J. How much of reinforcement learning is working memory, not reinforcement learning? A behavioral, computational, and neurogenetic analysis. Eur. J. Neurosci. 35, 1024–1035 (2012).
Collins, A. G. The tortoise and the hare: interactions between reinforcement learning and working memory. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 30, 1422–1432 (2018).
Brewer, W. F. & Treyens, J. C. Role of schemata in memory for places. Cogn. Psychol. 13, 207–230 (1981).
Bates, C. J. & Jacobs, R. A.Efficient data compression in perception and perceptual memory. Psychol. Rev. 127, 891–917 (2020).
Brady, T. F., Konkle, T. & Alvarez, G. A. Compression in visual working memory: using statistical regularities to form more efficient memory representations. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 138, 487–502 (2009).
Orhan, A. E., Sims, C. R., Jacobs, R. A. & Knill, D. C. The adaptive nature of visual working memory. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 23, 164–170 (2014).
Sims, C. R., Jacobs, R. A. & Knill, D. C.An ideal observer analysis of visual working memory. Psychol. Rev. 119, 807–830 (2012).
Lew, T. F. & Vul, E. Ensemble clustering in visual working memory biases location memories and reduces the Weber noise of relative positions. J. Vis. 15, 10 (2015).
Orhan, A. E. & Jacobs, R. A. A probabilistic clustering theory of the organization of visual short-term memory. Psychol. Rev. 120, 297–328 (2013).
Brady, T. F. & Tenenbaum, J. B. A probabilistic model of visual working memory: incorporating higher order regularities into working memory capacity estimates. Psychol. Rev. 120, 85–109 (2013).
Girshick, A. R., Landy, M. S. & Simoncelli, E. P. Cardinal rules: visual orientation perception reflects knowledge of environmental statistics. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 926–932 (2011).
Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., Corrigan, B. & Crawford, L. E. Spatial categories and the estimation of location. Cognition 93, 75–97 (2004).
Ganguli, D. & Simoncelli, E. P.Eficient sensory encoding and Bayesian inference with heterogeneous neural populations. Neural Comput. 26, 2103–2134 (2014).
Wei, X.-X. & Stocker, A. A. A Bayesian observer model constrained by efficient coding can explain ‘anti-bayesian’ percepts. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1509–1517 (2015).
Morais, M. & Pillow, J. W. Power-law efficient neural codes provide general link between perceptual bias and discriminability. Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst. 31 (2018).
Taylor, R. & Bays, P. M. Efficient coding in visual working memory accounts for stimulus-specific variations in recall. J. Neurosci. 38, 7132–7142 (2018).
Luck, S. J. & Vogel, E. K. The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature 390, 279–281 (1997).
Miller, G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63, 81–97 (1956).
Simon, H. A. How big is a chunk? By combining data from several experiments, a basic human memory unit can be identified and measured. Science 183, 482–488 (1974).
Bae, G.-Y., Olkkonen, M., Allred, S. R. & Flombaum, J. I.Why some colors appear more memorable than others: a model combining categories and particulars in color working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144, 744–763 (2015).
Hardman, K. O., Vergauwe, E. & Ricker, T. J. Categorical working memory representations are used in delayed estimation of continuous colors. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 43, 30–54 (2017).
Mathy, F. & Feldman, J. What’s magic about magic numbers? Chunking and data compression in short-term memory. Cognition 122, 346–362 (2012).
Norris, D., Kalm, K. & Hall, J. Chunking and redintegration in verbal short-term memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 46, 872–893 (2020).
Ngiam, W. X., Brissenden, J. A. & Awh, E. “Memory compression” effects in visual working memory are contingent on explicit long-term memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 148, 1373–1385 (2019).
Alvarez, G. A. & Cavanagh, P. The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by visual information load and by number of objects. Psychol. Sci. 15, 106–111 (2004).
Asp, I. E., Störmer, V. S. & Brady, T. F. Greater visual working memory capacity for visually matched stimuli when they are perceived as meaningful. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 33, 902–918 (2021).
Starr, A., Srinivasan, M. & Bunge, S. A. Semantic knowledge influences visual working memory in adults and children. PLoS ONE 15, e0241110 (2020).
Brady, T. F. & Störmer, V. S. The role of meaning in visual working memory: real-world objects, but not simple features, benefit from deeper processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 48, 942–958 (2022).
Kaiser, D., Stein, T. & Peelen, M. V. Real-world spatial regularities affect visual working memory for objects. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 22, 1784–1790 (2015).
Hu, R. & Jacobs, R. A. Semantic influence on visual working memory of object identity and location. Cognition 217, 104891 (2021).
O’Donnell, R. E., Clement, A. & Brockmole, J. R.Semantic and functional relationships among objects increase the capacity of visual working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 44, 1151–1158 (2018).
Wickens, D. D. Encoding categories of words: an empirical approach to meaning. Psychol. Rev. 77, 1–15 (1970).
Park, I. M. & Pillow, J. W. Bayesian efficient coding. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/178418 (2020).
Weber, A. I., Krishnamurthy, K. & Fairhall, A. L. Coding principles in adaptation. Annu. Rev. Vis. Sci. 5, 427–449 (2019).
Benucci, A., Saleem, A. B. & Carandini, M. Adaptation maintains population homeostasis in primary visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 724–729 (2013).
Shin, H. & Ma, W. J. Visual short-term memory for oriented, colored objects. J. Vis. 17, 12 (2017).
Fougnie, D., Asplund, C. L. & Marois, R. What are the units of storage in visual working memory? J. Vis. 10, 27 (2010).
Bays, P. M., Wu, E. Y. & Husain, M. Storage and binding of object features in visual working memory. Neuropsychologia 49, 1622–1631 (2011).
Ye, C., Hu, Z., Ristaniemi, T., Gendron, M. & Liu, Q. Retro-dimension-cue benefit in visual working memory. Sci. Rep. 6, 35573 (2016).
Park, Y. E., Sy, J. L., Hong, S. W. & Tong, F. Reprioritization of features of multidimensional objects stored in visual working memory. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1773–1785 (2017).
Hajonides, J. E., van Ede, F., Stokes, M. G. & Nobre, A. C. Comparing the prioritization of items and feature-dimensions in visual working memory. J. Vis. 20, 25 (2020).
Palmer, J., Boston, B. & Moore, C. M. Limited capacity for memory tasks with multiple features within a single object. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 77, 1488–1499 (2015).
Oberauer, K. & Eichenberger, S. Visual working memory declines when more features must be remembered for each object. Mem. Cogn. 41, 1212–1227 (2013).
Hardman, K. O. & Cowan, N. Remembering complex objects in visual working memory: do capacity limits restrict objects or features? J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 41, 325–347 (2015).
Chen, H. & Wyble, B. Attribute amnesia reflects a lack of memory consolidation for attended information. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 42, 225–234 (2016).
Wyble, B., Hess, M., O’Donnell, R. E., Chen, H. & Eitam, B. Learning how to exploit sources of information. Mem. Cogn. 47, 696–705 (2019).
Shin, H. & Ma, W. J. Crowdsourced single-trial probes of visual working memory for irrelevant features. J. Vis. 16, 10 (2016).
Swan, G., Collins, J. & Wyble, B. Memory for a single object has differently variable precisions for relevant and irrelevant features. J. Vis. 16, 32 (2016).
Yu, Q. & Shim, W. M. Occipital, parietal, and frontal cortices selectively maintain task-relevant features of multi-feature objects in visual working memory. NeuroImage 157, 97–107 (2017).
Bocincova, A. & Johnson, J. S. The time course of encoding and maintenance of task-relevant versus irrelevant object features in working memory. Cortex 111, 196–209 (2019).
Marshall, L. & Bays, P. M. Obligatory encoding of task-irrelevant features depletes working memory resources. J. Vis. 13, 21 (2013).
Wang, B., Cao, X., Theeuwes, J., Olivers, C. N. L. & Wang, Z. Location-based effects underlie feature conjunction benefits in visual working memory. J. Vis. 16, 12 (2016).
Markov, Y. A., Tiurina, N. A. & Utochkin, I. S. Different features are stored independently in visual working memory but mediated by object-based representations. Acta Psychol. 197, 52–63 (2019).
Brady, T. F., Konkle, T. & Alvarez, G. A. A review of visual memory capacity: beyond individual items and toward structured representations. J. Vis. 11, 4 (2011).
Bays, P. M., Catalao, R. F. G. & Husain, M. The precision of visual working memory is set by allocation of a shared resource. J. Vis. 9, 7 (2009).
Huang, L. Distinguishing target biases and strategic guesses in visual working memory. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 82, 1258–1270 (2020).
Pratte, M. S. Swap errors in spatial working memory are guesses. Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 26, 958–966 (2019).
Rajsic, J. & Wilson, D. E. Asymmetrical access to color and location in visual working memory. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 76, 1902–1913 (2014).
Rajsic, J., Swan, G., Wilson, D. E. & Pratt, J. Accessibility limits recall from visual working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 43, 1415–1431 (2017).
Bays, P. M. Evaluating and excluding swap errors in analogue tests of working memory. Sci. Rep. 6, 19203 (2016).
Emrich, S. M. & Ferber, S. Competition increases binding errors in visual working memory. J. Vis. 12, 12 (2012).
Rerko, L., Oberauer, K. & Lin, H.-Y. Spatial transposition gradients in visual working memory. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 67, 3–15 (2014).
Souza, A. S., Rerko, L., Lin, H.-Y. & Oberauer, K. Focused attention improves working memory: implications for flexible-resource and discrete-capacity models. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 76, 2080–2102 (2014).
Sahan, M. I., Dalmaijer, E. S., Verguts, T., Husain, M. & Fias, W. The graded fate of unattended stimulus representations in visuospatial working memory. Front. Psychol. 10, 374 (2019).
Wheeler, M. E. & Treisman, A. M. Binding in short-term visual memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 131, 48–64 (2002).
McMaster, J. M., Tomić, I., Schneegans, S. & Bays, P. M. Swap errors in visual working memory are fully explained by cue-feature variability. Cogn. Psychol. 137, 101493 (2022).
Manohar, S. G., Zokaei, N., Fallon, S. J., Vogels, T. P. & Husain, M. Neural mechanisms of attending to items in working memory. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 101, 1–12 (2019).
Lin, H.-Y. & Oberauer, K. An interference model for visual working memory: applications to the change detection task. Cogn. Psychol. 133, 101463 (2022).
Hedayati, S., O’Donnell, R. E. & Wyble, B. A model of working memory for latent representations. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 709–719 (2022).
Treisman, A. & Zhang, W. Location and binding in visual working memory. Mem. Cogn. 34, 1704–1719 (2006).
Huang, L. Unit of visual working memory: a Boolean map provides a better account than an object does. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 1–30 (2020).
Chen, H. & Wyble, B. The location but not the attributes of visual cues are automatically encoded into working memory. Vis. Res. 107, 76–85 (2015).
Kondo, A. & Saiki, J. Feature-specific encoding flexibility in visual working memory. PLoS ONE 7, e50962 (2012).
Foster, J. J., Bsales, E. M., Jaffe, R. J. & Awh, E. Alpha-band activity reveals spontaneous representations of spatial position in visual working memory. Curr. Biol. 27, 3216–3223.e6 (2017).
Cai, Y., Sheldon, A. D., Yu, Q. & Postle, B. R. Overlapping and distinct contributions of stimulus location and of spatial context to nonspatial visual short-term memory. J. Neurophysiol. 121, 1222–1231 (2019).
Tam, J. & Wyble, B. Location has a privilege, but it is limited: evidence from probing task-irrelevant location. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 49, 1051–1067 (2023).
Golomb, J. D., Kupitz, C. N. & Thiemann, C. T. The influence of object location on identity: a ‘spatial congruency bias’. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 2262–2278 (2014).
Teng, C. & Postle, B. R. Spatial specificity of feature-based interaction between working memory and visual processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 47, 495–507 (2021).
Parra, M. A. et al. Relational and conjunctive binding functions dissociate in short-term memory. Neurocase 21, 56–66 (2015).
Piekema, C., Rijpkema, M., Fernández, G. & Kessels, R. P. Dissociating the neural correlates of intra-item and inter-item working-memory binding. PLoS ONE 5, e10214 (2010).
Fougnie, D. & Alvarez, G. A. Object features fail independently in visual working memory: evidence for a probabilistic feature-store model. J. Vis. 11, 3 (2011).
Kovacs, O. & Harris, I. M. The role of location in visual feature binding. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 81, 1551–1563 (2019).
Markov, Y. A., Utochkin, I. S. & Brady, T. F. Real-world objects are not stored in holistic representations in visual working memory. J. Vis. 21, 18 (2021).
Schneegans, S., McMaster, J. M. V. & Bays, P. M. Role of time in binding features in visual working memory. Psychol. Rev. 130, 137–154 (2023).
Heuer, A. & Rolfs, M. Incidental encoding of visual information in temporal reference frames in working memory. Cognition 207, 104526 (2021).
Heuer, A. & Rolfs, M.Temporal and spatial reference frames in visual working memory are defined by ordinal and relational properties. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 49, 1361–1375 (2023).
Bowman, H. & Wyble, B. The simultaneous type, serial token model of temporal attention and working memory. Psychol. Rev. 114, 38–70 (2007).
Sone, H., Kang, M.-S., Li, A. Y., Tsubomi, H. & Fukuda, K. Simultaneous estimation procedure reveals the object-based, but not space-based, dependence of visual working memory representations. Cognition 209, 104579 (2021).
Brown, G., Kasem, I., Bays, P. M. & Schneegans, S. Mechanisms of feature binding in visual working memory are stable over long delays. J. Vis. 21, 7 (2021).
Read, C. A., Rogers, J. M. & Wilson, P. H. Working memory binding of visual object features in older adults. Aging Neuropsychol. Cogn. 23, 263–281 (2016).
Rhodes, S., Parra, M. A., Cowan, N. & Logie, R. H. Healthy aging and visual working memory: the effect of mixing feature and conjunction changes. Psychol. Aging 32, 354–366 (2017).
Pertzov, Y., Heider, M., Liang, Y. & Husain, M. Effects of healthy ageing on precision and binding of object location in visual short term memory. Psychol. Aging 30, 26–35 (2015).
Della Sala, S., Parra, M. A., Fabi, K., Luzzi, S. & Abrahams, S. Short-term memory binding is impaired in AD but not in non-AD dementias. Neuropsychologia 50, 833–840 (2012).
Lugtmeijer, S. et al. Consequence of stroke for feature recall and binding in visual working memory. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 179, 107387 (2021).
Liang, Y. et al. Visual short-term memory binding deficit in familial Alzheimer’s disease. Cortex 78, 150–164 (2016).
Martínez, J. F., Trujillo, C., Arévalo, A., Ibáñez, A. & Cardona, J. F. Assessment of conjunctive binding in aging: a promising approach for Alzheimer’s disease detection. J. Alzheimers Dis. 69, 71–81 (2019).
Fornaciai, M. & Park, J. Attractive serial dependence between memorized stimuli. Cognition 200, 104250 (2020).
Czoschke, S., Peters, B., Rahm, B., Kaiser, J. & Bledowski, C. Visual objects interact differently during encoding and memory maintenance. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 82, 1241–1257 (2020).
Teng, C., Fulvio, J. M., Jiang, J. & Postle, B. R. Flexible top-down control in the interaction between working memory and perception. J. Vis. 22, 3 (2022).
Webster, M. A. Visual adaptation. Annu. Rev. Vis. Sci. 1, 547–567 (2015).
Cicchini, G. M., Benedetto, A. & Burr, D. C. Perceptual history propagates down to early levels of sensory analysis. Curr. Biol. 31, 1245–1250.e2 (2021).
Kiyonaga, A., Scimeca, J. M., Bliss, D. P. & Whitney, D. Serial dependence across perception, attention, and memory. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21, 493–497 (2017).
Bliss, D. P., Sun, J. J. & D’Esposito, M. Serial dependence is absent at the time of perception but increases in visual working memory. Sci. Rep. 7, 14739 (2017).
Barbosa, J. & Compte, A. Build-up of serial dependence in color working memory. Sci. Rep. 10, 10959 (2020).
Fritsche, M., Mostert, P. & de Lange, F. P. Opposite effects of recent history on perception and decision. Curr. Biol. 27, 590–595 (2017).
Bergen, R. S. V. & Jehee, J. F. M.Probabilistic representation in human visual cortex reflects uncertainty in serial decisions. J. Neurosci. 39, 8164–8176 (2019).
Fritsche, M., Spaak, E. & de Lange, F. P. A Bayesian and efficient observer model explains concurrent attractive and repulsive history biases in visual perception. eLife 9, e55389 (2020).
Cicchini, G. M., Mikellidou, K. & Burr, D. C. The functional role of serial dependence. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20181722 (2018).
Bae, G.-Y. & Luck, S. J. Interactions between visual working memory representations. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 79, 2376–2395 (2017).
Czoschke, S., Fischer, C., Beitner, J., Kaiser, J. & Bledowski, C. Two types of serial dependence in visual working memory. Br. J. Psychol. 110, 256–267 (2019).
Kang, M.-S. & Choi, J. Retrieval-induced inhibition in short-term memory. Psychol. Sci. 26, 1014–1025 (2015).
Lively, Z., Robinson, M. M. & Benjamin, A. S. Memory fidelity reveals qualitative changes in interactions between items in visual working memory. Psychol. Sci. 32, 1426–1441 (2021).
Chunharas, C., Rademaker, R. L., Brady, T. F. & Serences, J. T. An adaptive perspective on visual working memory distortions. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 151, 2300–2323 (2022).
Scotti, P. S., Hong, Y., Golomb, J. D. & Leber, A. B. Statistical learning as a reference point for memory distortions: swap and shift errors. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 83, 1652–1672 (2021).
Dubé, C., Zhou, F., Kahana, M. J. & Sekuler, R. Similarity-based distortion of visual short-term memory is due to perceptual averaging. Vis. Res. 96, 8–16 (2014).
Brady, T. F. & Alvarez, G. A. Hierarchical encoding in visual working memory: ensemble statistics bias memory for individual items. Psychol. Sci. 22, 384–392 (2011).
Papenmeier, F. & Timm, J. D. Do group ensemble statistics bias visual working memory for individual items? A registered replication of Brady and Alvarez (2011). Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 83, 1329–1336 (2021).
Sheth, B. R. & Shimojo, S. Compression of space in visual memory. Vis. Res. 41, 329–341 (2001).
Luu, L. & Stocker, A. A. Categorical judgments do not modify sensory representations in working memory. PLoS Comput. Biol. 17, e1008968 (2021).
Rademaker, R. L., Park, Y. E., Sack, A. T. & Tong, F. Evidence of gradual loss of precision for simple features and complex objects in visual working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 44, 925–940 (2018).
Schneegans, S. & Bays, P. M. Drift in neural population activity causes working memory to deteriorate over time. J. Neurosci. 38, 4859–4869 (2018).
Shin, H., Zou, Q. & Ma, W. J. The effects of delay duration on visual working memory for orientation. J. Vis. 17, 10 (2017).
Compte, A., Brunel, N., Goldman-Rakic, P. S. & Wang, X.-J. Synaptic mechanisms and network dynamics underlying spatial working memory in a cortical network model. Cereb. Cortex 10, 910–923 (2000).
Wei, Z., Wang, X.-J. & Wang, D.-H. From distributed resources to limited slots in multiple-item working memory: a spiking network model with normalization. J. Neurosci. 32, 11228–11240 (2012).
Wimmer, K., Nykamp, D. Q., Constantinidis, C. & Compte, A. Bump attractor dynamics in prefrontal cortex explains behavioral precision in spatial working memory. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 431–439 (2014).
Lim, P. C., Ward, E. J., Vickery, T. J. & Johnson, M. R. Not-so-working memory: drift in functional magnetic resonance imaging pattern representations during maintenance predicts errors in a visual working memory task. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 31, 1520–1534 (2019).
Wolff, M. J., Jochim, J., Akyürek, E. G., Buschman, T. J. & Stokes, M. G. Drifting codes within a stable coding scheme for working memory. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000625 (2020).
Kuuramo, C., Saarinen, J. & Kurki, I. Forgetting in visual working memory: internal noise explains decay of feature representations. J. Vis. 22, 8 (2022).
Panichello, M. F., DePasquale, B., Pillow, J. W. & Buschman, T. J. Error-correcting dynamics in visual working memory. Nat. Commun. 10, 3366 (2019).
Carroll, S., Josić, K. & Kilpatrick, Z. P. Encoding certainty in bump attractors. J. Comput. Neurosci. 37, 29–48 (2014).
Kutschireiter, A., Basnak, M. A., Wilson, R. I. & Drugowitsch, J. Bayesian inference in ring attractor networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2210622120 (2023).
Orhan, A. E. & Ma, W. J. A diverse range of factors affect the nature of neural representations underlying short-term memory. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 275–283 (2019).
Pertzov, Y., Manohar, S. & Husain, M. Rapid forgetting results from competition over time between items in visual working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 43, 528–536 (2017).
Koyluoglu, O. O., Pertzov, Y., Manohar, S., Husain, M. & Fiete, I. R. Fundamental bound on the persistence and capacity of short-term memory stored as graded persistent activity. eLife 6, e22225 (2017).
Bouchacourt, F. & Buschman, T. J. A flexible model of working memory. Neuron 103, 147���160.e8 (2019).
Almeida, R., Barbosa, J. & Compte, A. Neural circuit basis of visuo-spatial working memory precision: a computational and behavioral study. J. Neurophysiol. 114, 1806–1818 (2015).
Johnson, J. S., van Lamsweerde, A. E., Dineva, E. & Spencer, J. P. Neural interactions in working memory explain decreased recall precision and similarity-based feature repulsion. Sci. Rep. 12, 17756 (2022).
Fuster, J. M. & Alexander, G. E. Neuron activity related to short-term memory. Science 173, 652–654 (1971).
Funahashi, S., Bruce, C. J. & Goldman-Rakic, P. S. Mnemonic coding of visual space in the monkey’s dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 61, 331–349 (1989).
Hart, E. & Huk, A. C. Recurrent circuit dynamics underlie persistent activity in the macaque frontoparietal network. eLife 9, e52460 (2020).
Kamiński, J. et al. Persistently active neurons in human medial frontal and medial temporal lobe support working memory. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 590–601 (2017).
Kornblith, S., Quian Quiroga, R., Koch, C., Fried, I. & Mormann, F. Persistent single-neuron activity during working memory in the human medial temporal lobe. Curr. Biol. 27, 1026–1032 (2017).
Brouwer, G. J. & Heeger, D. J. Decoding and reconstructing color from responses in human visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 29, 13992–14003 (2009).
Ester, E. F., Anderson, D. E., Serences, J. T. & Awh, E. A neural measure of precision in visual working memory. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 25, 754–761 (2013).
Stokes, M. G. et al. Dynamic coding for cognitive control in prefrontal cortex. Neuron 78, 364–375 (2013).
Wolff, M. J., Jochim, J., Akyürek, E. G. & Stokes, M. G. Dynamic hidden states underlying working-memory-guided behavior. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 864–871 (2017).
Sreenivasan, K. K., Vytlacil, J. & D’Esposito, M. Distributed and dynamic storage of working memory stimulus information in extrastriate cortex. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 26, 1141–1153 (2014).
Meyers, E. M., Freedman, D. J., Kreiman, G., Miller, E. K. & Poggio, T. Dynamic population coding of category information in inferior temporal and prefrontal cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 100, 1407–1419 (2008).
Cavanagh, S. E., Towers, J. P., Wallis, J. D., Hunt, L. T. & Kennerley, S. W. Reconciling persistent and dynamic hypotheses of working memory coding in prefrontal cortex. Nat. Commun. 9, 3498 (2018).
Coltheart, M. Iconic memory and visible persistence. Percept. Psychophys. 27, 183–228 (1980).
Stokes, M. G. ‘Activity-silent’ working memory in prefrontal cortex: a dynamic coding framework. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 394–405 (2015).
Postle, B. R. in Mechanisms of Sensory Working Memory 43–58 (Elsevier, 2015).
Baeg, E. et al. Dynamics of population code for working memory in the prefrontal cortex. Neuron 40, 177–188 (2003).
MacDonald, C. J., Lepage, K. Q., Eden, U. T. & Eichenbaum, H. Hippocampal ‘time cells’ bridge the gap in memory for discontiguous events. Neuron 71, 737–749 (2011).
Scott, B. B. et al. Fronto-parietal cortical circuits encode accumulated evidence with a diversity of timescales. Neuron 95, 385–398.e5 (2017).
Murray, J. D. et al. Stable population coding for working memory coexists with heterogeneous neural dynamics in prefrontal cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 394–399 (2017).
Parthasarathy, A. et al. Time-invariant working memory representations in the presence of code-morphing in the lateral prefrontal cortex. Nat. Commun. 10, 4995 (2019).
Spaak, E., Watanabe, K., Funahashi, S. & Stokes, M. G. Stable and dynamic coding for working memory in primate prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 37, 6503–6516 (2017).
Cueva, C. J. et al. Low-dimensional dynamics for working memory and time encoding. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 23021–23032 (2020).
Oberauer, K. Access to information in working memory: exploring the focus of attention. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 28, 411–421 (2002).
Lewis-Peacock, J. A., Drysdale, A. T., Oberauer, K. & Postle, B. R. Neural evidence for a distinction between short-term memory and the focus of attention. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 24, 61–79 (2012).
Mongillo, G., Barak, O. & Tsodyks, M. Synaptic theory of working memory. Science 319, 1543–1546 (2008).
Barak, O. & Tsodyks, M. Working models of working memory. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 25, 20–24 (2014).
LaRocque, J. J., Lewis-Peacock, J. A., Drysdale, A. T., Oberauer, K. & Postle, B. R. Decoding attended information in short-term memory: an EEG study. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 25, 127–142 (2013).
LaRocque, J. J., Riggall, A. C., Emrich, S. M. & Postle, B. R. Within-category decoding of information in different attentional states in short-term memory. Cereb. Cortex 27, 4881–4890 (2017).
Sprague, T. C., Ester, E. F. & Serences, J. T. Restoring latent visual working memory representations in human cortex. Neuron 91, 694–707 (2016).
Rose, N. S. et al. Reactivation of latent working memories with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Science 354, 1136–1139 (2016).
Sugase-Miyamoto, Y., Liu, Z., Wiener, M. C., Optican, L. M. & Richmond, B. J. Short-term memory trace in rapidly adapting synapses of inferior temporal cortex. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000073 (2008).
Bocincova, A., Buschman, T. J., Stokes, M. G. & Manohar, S. G. Neural signature of flexible coding in prefrontal cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2200400119 (2022).
Masse, N. Y., Yang, G. R., Song, H. F., Wang, X.-J. & Freedman, D. J. Circuit mechanisms for the maintenance and manipulation of information in working memory. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 1159–1167 (2019).
Van Loon, A. M., Olmos-Solis, K., Fahrenfort, J. J. & Olivers, C. N. Current and future goals are represented in opposite patterns in object-selective cortex. eLife 7, e38677 (2018).
Yu, Q., Teng, C. & Postle, B. R. Different states of priority recruit different neural representations in visual working memory. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000769 (2020).
Wan, Q., Menendez, J. A. & Postle, B. R. Priority-based transformations of stimulus representation in visual working memory. PLoS Comput. Biol. 18, e1009062 (2022).
Christophel, T. B., Iamshchinina, P., Yan, C., Allefeld, C. & Haynes, J.-D. Cortical specialization for attended versus unattended working memory. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 494–496 (2018).
Iamshchinina, P., Christophel, T. B., Gayet, S. & Rademaker, R. L. Essential considerations for exploring visual working memory storage in the human brain. Vis. Cogn. 29, 425–436 (2021).
Barbosa, J., Lozano-Soldevilla, D. & Compte, A. Pinging the brain with visual impulses reveals electrically active, not activity-silent, working memories. PLoS Biol. 19, e3001436 (2021).
Schneegans, S. & Bays, P. M. Restoration of fMRI decodability does not imply latent working memory states. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 29, 1977–1994 (2017).
Vogel, E. K. & Machizawa, M. G. Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity. Nature 428, 748–751 (2004).
Luria, R., Balaban, H., Awh, E. & Vogel, E. K. The contralateral delay activity as a neural measure of visual working memory. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 62, 100–108 (2016).
Bays, P. M. Reassessing the evidence for capacity limits in neural signals related to working memory. Cereb. Cortex 28, 1432–1438 (2018).
Adam, K. C. S., Vogel, E. K. & Awh, E. Multivariate analysis reveals a generalizable human electrophysiological signature of working memory load. Psychophysiology 57, e13691 (2020).
Emrich, S. M., Riggall, A. C., LaRocque, J. J. & Postle, B. R. Distributed patterns of activity in sensory cortex reflect the precision of multiple items maintained in visual short-term memory. J. Neurosci. 33, 6516–6523 (2013).
Sutterer, D. W., Foster, J. J., Adam, K. C. S., Vogel, E. K. & Awh, E. Item-specific delay activity demonstrates concurrent storage of multiple active neural representations in working memory. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000239 (2019).
Beukers, A. O., Buschman, T. J., Cohen, J. D. & Norman, K. A. Is activity silent working memory simply episodic memory? Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 284–293 (2021).
Foster, J. J., Vogel, E. K. & Awh, E. in Oxford Handbook of Human Memory (eds Kahana, M. J. & Wagner, A. D.) Ch. 13 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019).
Riley, M. R. & Constantinidis, C. Role of prefrontal persistent activity in working memory. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 9, 181 (2015).
D’Esposito, M. & Postle, B. R. The cognitive neuroscience of working memory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 115–142 (2015).
Xu, Y. Revisit once more the sensory storage account of visual working memory. Vis. Cogn. 28, 433–446 (2020).
Serences, J. T. Neural mechanisms of information storage in visual short-term memory. Vis. Res. 128, 53–67 (2016).
Stokes, M. G., Muhle-Karbe, P. S. & Myers, N. E. Theoretical distinction between functional states in working memory and their corresponding neural states. Vis. Cogn. 28, 420–432 (2020).
Cowan, N. The focus of attention as observed in visual working memory tasks: making sense of competing claims. Neuropsychologia 49, 1401–1406 (2011).
Olivers, C. N., Peters, J., Houtkamp, R. & Roelfsema, P. R.Different states in visual working memory: when it guides attention and when it does not. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 327–334 (2011).
Ort, E., Fahrenfort, J. J. & Olivers, C. N. L. Lack of free choice reveals the cost of multiple-target search within and across feature dimensions. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 80, 1904–1917 (2018).
Beck, V. M., Hollingworth, A. & Luck, S. J. Simultaneous control of attention by multiple working memory representations. Psychol. Sci. 23, 887–898 (2012).
Bahle, B., Thayer, D. D., Mordkoff, J. T. & Hollingworth, A. The architecture of working memory: features from multiple remembered objects produce parallel, coactive guidance of attention in visual search. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 967–983 (2020).
Ort, E., Fahrenfort, J. J., ten Cate, T., Eimer, M. & Olivers, C. N. Humans can efficiently look for but not select multiple visual objects. eLife 8, e49130 (2019).
Williams, J. R., Brady, T. F. & Störmer, V. S. Guidance of attention by working memory is a matter of representational fidelity. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 48, 202–231 (2022).
Lundqvist, M., Compte, A. & Lansner, A. Bistable, irregular firing and population oscillations in a modular attractor memory network. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6, e1000803 (2010).
Lundqvist, M. et al. Gamma and beta bursts underlie working memory. Neuron 90, 152–164 (2016).
Fiebig, F. & Lansner, A. A spiking working memory model based on Hebbian short-term potentiation. J. Neurosci. 37, 83–96 (2017).
Shafi, M. et al. Variability in neuronal activity in primate cortex during working memory tasks. Neuroscience 146, 1082–1108 (2007).
Lundqvist, M., Herman, P. & Miller, E. K. Working memory: delay activity, yes! Persistent activity? Maybe not. J. Neurosci. 38, 7013–7019 (2018).
Constantinidis, C. et al. Persistent spiking activity underlies working memory. J. Neurosci. 38, 7020–7028 (2018).
Pomper, U. & Ansorge, U. Theta-rhythmic oscillation of working memory performance. Psychol. Sci. 32, 1801–1810 (2021).
Cohen, M., Keefe, J. M. & Brady, T. Perceptual awareness occurs along a graded continuum: no evidence of all-or-none failures in continuous reproduction tasks. Psychol. Sci. 34, 1033 (2023).
Taylor, R. & Bays, P. M. Theory of neural coding predicts an upper bound on estimates of memory variability. Psychol. Rev. 127, 700–718 (2020).
Zhou, Y., Curtis, C. E., Sreenivasan, K. & Fougnie, D. Common neural mechanisms control attention and working memory. J. Neurosci. 42, 7110–7120 (2022).
Rademaker, R. L., Chunharas, C. & Serences, J. T. Coexisting representations of sensory and mnemonic information in human visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 1336–1344 (2019).
Miner, A. E., Schurgin, M. W. & Brady, T. F.Is working memory inherently more ‘precise’ than long-term memory? Extremely high fidelity visual long-term memories for frequently encountered objects. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 46, 813–830 (2020).
Draschkow, D., Kallmayer, M. & Nobre, A. C. When natural behavior engages working memory. Curr. Biol. 31, 869–874.e5 (2021).
Kristjánsson, Á. & Draschkow, D. Keeping it real: looking beyond capacity limits in visual cognition. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 83, 1375–1390 (2021).
Issen, L. A. & Knill, D. C.Decoupling eye and hand movement control: visual short-term memory influences reach planning more than saccade planning. J. Vis. 12, 3 (2012).
Bays, P. M. & Husain, M. Dynamic shifts of limited working memory resources in human vision. Science 321, 851–854 (2008).
Awh, E., Barton, B. & Vogel, E. K. Visual working memory represents a fixed number of items regardless of complexity. Psychol. Sci. 18, 622–628 (2007).
Pratte, M. S. Set size effects on working memory precision are not due to an averaging of slots. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 82, 2937–2949 (2020).
Bays, P. M. Failure of self-consistency in the discrete resource model of visual working memory. Cogn. Psychol. 105, 1–8 (2018).
Devkar, D. T., Wright, A. A. & Ma, W. J. The same type of visual working memory limitations in humans and monkeys. J. Vis. 15, 13 (2015).
Pratte, M. S., Park, Y. E., Rademaker, R. L. & Tong, F.Accounting for stimulus-specific variation in precision reveals a discrete capacity limit in visual working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 43, 6–17 (2017).
Pashler, H. Familiarity and visual change detection. Percept. Psychophys. 44, 369–378 (1988).
Oostwoud Wijdenes, L., Marshall, L. & Bays, P. M. Evidence for optimal integration of visual feature representations across saccades. J. Neurosci. 35, 10146–10153 (2015).
Wolf, C. & Schütz, A. C. Trans-saccadic integration of peripheral and foveal feature information is close to optimal. J. Vis. 15, 1 (2015).
Ganmor, E., Landy, M. S. & Simoncelli, E. P. Near-optimal integration of orientation information across saccades. J. Vis. 15, 8 (2015).
Kong, G., Kroell, L. M., Schneegans, S., Aagten-Murphy, D. & Bays, P. M. Transsaccadic integration relies on a limited memory resource. J. Vis. 21, 24 (2021).
Stewart, E. E. M. & Schütz, A. C. Optimal trans-saccadic integration relies on visual working memory. Vis. Res. 153, 70–81 (2018).
Stewart, E. E. M. & Schütz, A. C. Transsaccadic integration benefits are not limited to the saccade target. J. Neurophysiol. 122, 1491–1501 (2019).
Ohl, S. & Rolfs, M. Saccadic eye movements impose a natural bottleneck on visual short-term memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 43, 736–748 (2017).
Udale, R., Tran, M. T., Manohar, S. & Husain, M. Dynamic in-flight shifts of working memory resources across saccades. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 48, 21–36 (2022).
Shao, N. et al. Saccades elicit obligatory allocation of visual working memory. Mem. Cogn. 38, 629–640 (2010).
Hanning, N. M., Jonikaitis, D., Deubel, H. & Szinte, M. Oculomotor selection underlies feature retention in visual working memory. J. Neurophysiol. 115, 1071–1076 (2016).
Heuer, A., Ohl, S. & Rolfs, M. Memory for action: a functional view of selection in visual working memory. Vis. Cogn. 28, 388–400 (2020).
Chen, Y. & Crawford, J. D. Allocentric representations for target memory and reaching in human cortex. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1464, 142–155 (2020).
Aagten-Murphy, D. & Bays, P. M. Functions of memory across saccadic eye movements. Curr. Top. Behav. Neurosci. 41, 155–183 (2019).
Hanning, N. M. & Deubel, H. Independent effects of eye and hand movements on visual working memory. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 12, 37 (2018).
Heuer, A., Crawford, J. D. & Schubö, A. Action relevance induces an attentional weighting of representations in visual working memory. Mem. Cogn. 45, 413–427 (2017).
Heuer, A. & Schubö, A. Separate and combined effects of action relevance and motivational value on visual working memory. J. Vis. 18, 14 (2018).
Byrne, P. A. & Crawford, J. D. Cue reliability and a landmark stability heuristic determine relative weighting between egocentric and allocentric visual information in memory-guided reach. J. Neurophysiol. 103, 3054–3069 (2010).
Fiehler, K., Wolf, C., Klinghammer, M. & Blohm, G. Integration of egocentric and allocentric information during memory-guided reaching to images of a natural environment. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 636 (2014).
Aagten-Murphy, D. & Bays, P. M. Independent working memory resources for egocentric and allocentric spatial information. PLoS Comput. Biol. 15, e1006563 (2019).
Acknowledgements
P.M.B. was supported by a personal fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (grant number 106926). T.F.B. was supported by NSF BCS-2141189 and NSF BCS-2146988.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed equally to this work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Human Behaviour thanks Bradley Postle and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Bays, P.M., Schneegans, S., Ma, W.J. et al. Representation and computation in visual working memory. Nat Hum Behav 8, 1016–1034 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01871-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01871-2
