Perceptual attention is probably necessary but not sufficient for encoding stimuli into working memory¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2024: baselines and conditions change
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Stimuli can be attended to without being encoded into WM, as shown by surprise memory tests after attentional cueing and by to-be-forgotten words contributing no load to WM. → Oberauer 2019
Evidence¶
Oberauer 2019¶
Oberauer, K. (2019). Working Memory and Attention – A Conceptual Analysis and Review. Journal of Cognition, 2(1): 36. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.58
q2 · i? · review · r3
The review's conclusion from multiple experimental sources: surprise memory tests after attentional cueing show poor memory for attended features (Chen & Wyble), and to-be-forgotten words cued after offset contribute no WM load (Oberauer, 2018). The review states perceptual attention is "probably necessary but not sufficient" for WM encoding, and that filtering is imperfect.
"As discussed above in the section on Filtering, perceptual attention is probably necessary but not sufficient for encoding of stimuli into WM. Yet, filtering is not perfect, so that attended information is sometimes encoded into WM to some extent even when this is not desired."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Early (within ~100 ms) attentional modulation during encoding predicts subsequent working memory accuracy — related
- Acetylcholine gates memory encoding: surprising outcomes drive high release that encodes new memories distinct from prior ones, and focus lags alertness by several minutes — related
- Predictive cues aid transfer of perceptual representations into working memory via pre-encoding top-down modulation — related
- Perceptual attention and working memory are distinct entities that causally affect each other — related
- rTMS of right IFJ causally reduces top-down modulation during encoding and working memory accuracy — related
- Selective attention facilitates working memory retrieval, and selecting from WM resembles visual search — related
- Post-hoc finding: P1 latency was increased for attended versus unattended unilateral stimuli, selectively over the ipsilateral ROI — related
- Retro-cues during maintenance dynamically modulate working memory representations and confer large performance benefits — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
perceptual-attention-necessary-not-sufficient-wm-encoding |
title |
Perceptual attention is probably necessary but not sufficient for encoding stimuli into working memory |
description |
Perceptual attention is probably necessary but not sufficient for encoding stimuli into working memory |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
recheck_by |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — oberauer-2019 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.