Orienting Attention to Locations in Internal Representations

By Ivan C. Griffin, Anna Christina Nobre. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2003

693 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/09555d858051c648dc658caedb41205150b9da82

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

Citations in the corpus

Typologies of attentional networks (2006, background): “Recent work using post-target spatial cues has shown an orienting effect for various internal representations (including items stored in working memor”
A shift of visual spatial attention is selectively associated with human EEG alpha activity (2005, background): “…be the neuronal correlate of executive control, together with posterior brain regions building an attention-related network (see, e.g. LaBerge, 1997; Gitelman et al., 1999; Rosen et al., 1999; Nobre, 2001; Griffin & Nobre, 2003; Small et al., 2003; Nobre et al., 2004; Gonzalez Andino et al., 2005).”
Neural Evidence for a Distinction Between Short-Term Memory and the Focus of Attention (2011, neutral): “…(Chun, 2011; Cowan, 2011; Gazzaley, 2011; Ikkai & Curtis, 2011; Lepsien, Thornton, & Nobre, 2011; Nee & Jonides, 2008, 2011; Olivers & Eimer, 2011; Stokes, 2011; Vandenbroucke, Sligte, & Lamme, 2011; Esterman, Chiu, Tamber-Rosenau, & Yantis, 2009; Woltz & Was, 2006; Griffin & Nobre, 2003).”
Attention effects during visual short-term memory maintenance: Protection or prioritization? (2007, methodology): “First, these findings conflict with previous studies that were discussed above, in which cues became ineffective a few hundred milliseconds after the memory array offset, presumably because there was no remaining perceptual representation of the object for the cues to encode into VSTM.”
An Interference Model of Visual Working Memory (2017, background): “…interval, one to several seconds after offset of the memory array, then memory for the target is improved compared to a condition where the target location is identified only at the time of testing (Griffin & Nobre, 2003; Landman, Spekreijse, & Lamme, 2003; for a review see Souza & Oberauer, 2016).”
Attention to Information in Working Memory (2012, positive): “Makovski, Sussman, and Jiang (2008) and Griffin and Nobre (2003) used the change-detection task (Luck & Vogel, 1997) to investigate the narrow focus in visual working memory.”
Non-Target Suppression Supports the Formation of Representational Prioritization Under High Working Memory Load (2025, unknown): “Previous studies investigating the formation of representational prioritization typically ensured 100% cue validity in retro-cue paradigms, which made it difficult to simultaneously measure participants’ behavioral responses to both targets and non-targets [19,51,52].”
EEG Correlates of Cognitive Dynamics in Task Resumption After Interruptions: The Impact of Available Time and Flexibility (2024, unknown): “Such an experimental design would see participants store task-relevant information in working memory before directing attention to a specific subset of information with the presentation of informative cues (Griffin and Nobre 2003; Schneider et al. 2017; Souza and Oberauer 2016).”
Neural signatures of competition between voluntary and involuntary influences over the focus of attention in visual working memory (2023, background): “During the working-memory delay, the central fixation cross flashed briefly in one of the two colors serving as a retrocue (van Ede & Nobre, 2023; Souza & Oberauer, 2016; Griffin & Nobre, 2003).”
Prioritizing flexible working memory representations through retrospective attentional strengthening (2023, unknown): “Several studies demonstrated the costs of invalid anticipatory attention (Gunseli et al., 2015; Griffin and Nobre, 2003), and larger behavioral benefits were observed as more non-targets were removed from WM with increasing memory loads (Van Moorselaar et al., 2015).”
Changes in behavioral priority influence the accessibility but not the quality of working memory content (2022, background): “The neural consequences of assigning priority to specific WM content can be studied by measuring brain activity linked with WM storage while participants perform a retrospectively cued memory task (Griffin & Nobre, 2003; Lewis-Peacock et al., 2012; Ester et al., 2018; Panichello & Buschman, 2021).”
Temporal expectation based on the duration variability modulates alpha oscillations during working memory retention (2022, background): “One important approach is to present retrospective cues (retro-cues) during the retention interval of WM to inform participants about the information that will be probed in the subsequent memory test (Astle et al., 2012; Griffin and Nobre, 2003; Oberauer and Hein, 2012; Souza and Oberauer, 2016).”