Tracking Neural Markers of Template Formation and Implementation in Attentional Inhibition under Different Distractor Consistency

How researchers see this paper

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

Oscillatory signatures of monitoring and anticipatory strategies for probabilistic vs deterministic cues (2025, unknown): “…avoid the potential issues associated with the selection of a restricted number of sensors: F1, FZ, F2, FC1, FCZ, FC2 ( Alsuradi et al., 2021; Cooper et al., 2017; Jia et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2016; Pezzetta et al., 2018; Stolz et al., 2023; Wen et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2015; Z ü st et al., 2019).”
Prioritizing flexible working memory representations through retrospective attentional strengthening (2023, unknown): “Since rejection template formation of distractors could achieve decoding accuracy of distractor information above chance level (Wen et al., 2022), we would expect a higher decoding accuracy of non-target orientation classification in the valid condition but no difference in decoding accuracy of…”
Tracking neural correlates of prioritizing working memory representations through retrospective attentional strengthening (2022, background): “7 chance level (31), we would expect a higher decoding accuracy of non-target orientation classification in valid 1 condition, but no difference in decoding accuracy of target orientation classification.”