Visual Working Memory Guides Attention Rhythmically

Article activity feed

1. 

   eLife

   Sep 23, 2025

   eLife Assessment

   This valuable study reports evidence that items maintained in working memory can bias attention in an oscillatory manner, with the attentional capture effect fluctuating at theta frequency. The study provides incomplete evidence that this dynamic attentional bias is associated with oscillatory neural mechanisms, particularly in the alpha and theta bands, as measured by EEG. The study will be relevant for researchers studying attention, working memory, and neural oscillations, particularly those interested in how memory and perception interact over time.

   Read the original source
2. 

   eLife

   Sep 23, 2025

   Reviewer #1 (Public review):

   Summary

   In the presented paper, Lu and colleagues focus on how items held in working memory bias someone's attention. In a series of three experiments, they utilized a similar paradigm in which subjects were asked to maintain two colored squares in memory for a short and variable time. After this delay, they either tested one of the memory items or asked subjects to perform a search task.

   In the search task, items could share colors with the memory items, and the authors were interested in how these would capture attention, using reaction time as a proxy. The behavioral data suggest that attention oscillates between the two items. At different maintenance intervals, the authors observed that items in memory captured different amounts of attention (attentional capture effect).

   This attentional bias fluctuates …

   Reviewer #1 (Public review):

   Summary

   In the presented paper, Lu and colleagues focus on how items held in working memory bias someone's attention. In a series of three experiments, they utilized a similar paradigm in which subjects were asked to maintain two colored squares in memory for a short and variable time. After this delay, they either tested one of the memory items or asked subjects to perform a search task.

   In the search task, items could share colors with the memory items, and the authors were interested in how these would capture attention, using reaction time as a proxy. The behavioral data suggest that attention oscillates between the two items. At different maintenance intervals, the authors observed that items in memory captured different amounts of attention (attentional capture effect).

   This attentional bias fluctuates over time at approximately the theta frequency range of the EEG spectrum. This part of the study is a replication of Peters and colleagues (2020).

   Next, the authors used EEG recordings to better understand the neural mechanisms underlying this process. They present results suggesting that this attentional capture effect is positively correlated with the mean amplitude of alpha power. Furthermore, they show that the weighted phase lag index (wPLI) between the alpha and theta bands across different electrodes also fluctuates at the theta frequency.

   Strengths

   The authors focus on an interesting and timely topic: how items in working memory can bias our attention. This line of research could improve our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying working memory, specifically how we maintain multiple items and how these interact with attentional processes. This approach is intriguing because it can shed light on neuronal mechanisms not only through behavioral measures but also by incorporating brain recordings, which is definitely a strength.
   Subjects performed several blocks of experiments, ranging from 4 to 30, over a few days depending on the experiment. This makes the results - especially those from behavioral experiments 2 and 3, which included the most repetitions - particularly robust.

   Weaknesses

   One of the main EEG results is based on the weighted phase lag index (wPLI) between oscillations in the alpha and theta bands. In my opinion, this is problematic, as wPLI measures the locking of oscillations at the same frequency. It quantifies how reliably the phase difference stays the same over time. If these oscillations have different frequencies, the phase difference cannot remain consistent. Even worse, modeling data show that even very small fluctuations in frequency between signals make wPLI artificially small (Cohen, 2015).

   In response authors stated : "Additionally, the present study referenced previous research by using the wPLI index as a measure of cross-frequency coupling strength31,64-66"
   Unfortunately, after checking those publications, we can see that in paper 31 there is no mention of "wPLI" or "PLV." In 64 and 65, the authors use wPLI, but only to measure same-frequency coherence, whereas cross-frequency coupling is computed by phase-amplitude coupling or cross-frequency coupling also known as n:m-PS. In 66, I cannot find any cross-frequency results, only cross-species analysis. This is very problematic, as it indicates that the authors included references in their rebuttal without verifying their relevance.
   31 de Vries, I. E. J., van Driel, J., Karacaoglu, M. & Olivers, C. N. L. Priority Switches in Visual Working Memory are Supported by Frontal Delta and Posterior Alpha Interactions. Cereb Cortex 28, 4090-4104, doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy223 (2018).64 Delgado-Sallent, C. et al. Atypical, but not typical, antipsychotic drugs reduce hypersynchronized prefrontal-hippocampal circuits during psychosis-like states in mice: Contribution of 5-HT2A and 5-HT1A receptors. Cerebral Cortex 32, 870 3472-3487 (2022). 65 Siebenhühner, F. et al. Genuine cross-frequency coupling networks in human resting-state electrophysiological recordings. PLoS Biology 18, e3000685 (2020). 66 Zhang, F. et al. Cross-Species Investigation on Resting State Electroencephalogram. Brain Topogr 32, 808-824, doi:10.1007/s10548-019-00723-x (2019).

   Another result from the electrophysiology data shows that the attentional capture effect is positively correlated with the mean amplitude of alpha power. In the presented scatter plot, it seems that this result is driven by one outlier. Unfortunately, Pearson correlation is very sensitive to outliers, and the entire analysis can be driven by an extreme case. I extracted data from the plot and obtained a Pearson correlation of 0.4, similar to what the authors report. However, the Spearman correlation, which is robust against outliers, was only 0.13 (p = 0.57) indicating a non-significant relationship.

   Cohen, M. X. (2015). Effects of time lag and frequency matching on phase based connectivity. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 250, 137-146

   Read the original source
3. 

   eLife

   Sep 23, 2025

   Author response:

   The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

   Reviewer #1 (Public review):

   Thank you very much for your recognition of our work and for pointing out the shortcomings. We have made revisions one by one and provided corresponding explanations regarding the issues you raised.

   Weaknesses:

   One of the main EEG results is based on the weighted phase lag index (wPLI) between oscillations in the alpha and theta bands. In my opinion, this is problematic, as wPLI measures the locking of oscillations at the same frequency. It quantifies how reliably the phase difference stays the same over time. If these oscillations have different frequencies, the phase difference cannot remain consistent. Even worse, modeling data show that even very small fluctuations in frequency between signals make wPLI artificially small …

   Author response:

   The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

   Reviewer #1 (Public review):

   Thank you very much for your recognition of our work and for pointing out the shortcomings. We have made revisions one by one and provided corresponding explanations regarding the issues you raised.

   Weaknesses:

   One of the main EEG results is based on the weighted phase lag index (wPLI) between oscillations in the alpha and theta bands. In my opinion, this is problematic, as wPLI measures the locking of oscillations at the same frequency. It quantifies how reliably the phase difference stays the same over time. If these oscillations have different frequencies, the phase difference cannot remain consistent. Even worse, modeling data show that even very small fluctuations in frequency between signals make wPLI artificially small (Cohen, 2015).

   thank you for raising the question regarding the application of wPLI between the alpha and theta bands, which indeed deserves further explanation. In our study, we referred to some relevant previous literatures and adopted their approach of using wPLI to measure cross-frequency coupling strength, as this index itself can reflect the stability of phase differences. We have also considered the point you mentioned that the phase differences of oscillations with different frequencies are difficult to remain consistent. However, in this study, the presentation times of the two memory items are the same, which is fair to both from this perspective. Moreover, the study observed that the wPLI values of these two items alternately dominate over time, and this changing pattern is consistent with the regularity of behavioral data. It seems hard to explain this as a mere coincidence.

   The corresponding discussion has been added to the revised part of the paper：“the present study referenced previous research by using the wPLI index as a measure of cross-frequency coupling strength31,64-66 (this index quantifies the stability of phase differences), yet the phases of different oscillations inherently change over time. However, this is fair to the two memory items in the present study, as their presentation times were balanced. The study found that the wPLI values of the two items alternately dominated over time, consistent with the pattern of behavioral data, which is hardly explicable by coincidence”

   Another result from the electrophysiology data shows that the attentional capture effect is positively correlated with the mean amplitude of alpha power. In the presented scatter plot, it seems that this result is driven by one outlier. Unfortunately, Pearson correlation is very sensitive to outliers, and the entire analysis can be driven by an extreme case. I extracted data from the plot and obtained a Pearson correlation of 0.4, similar to what the authors report. However, the Spearman correlation, which is robust against outliers, was only 0.13 (p = 0.57), indicating a non-significant relationship.

   you mentioned that the correlation between the attentional capture effect and the mean amplitude of alpha power in the electrophysiological data might be influenced by an outlier, and you also compared the results of Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients, which we fully agree with.

   It is true that the small sample size of the current study makes the results vulnerable to interference from extreme data. Regarding this point, I have already explained it in the limitations section of the discussion in the revised manuscript:“the sample size of the current study is small, which may render the results vulnerable to interference from extreme cases”

   The behavioral data are interesting, but in my opinion, they closely replicate Peters and colleagues (2020) using a different paradigm. In that study, participants memorized four spatial positions that formed the endpoints of two objects, and one object was cued. Similarly, reaction times fluctuated at theta frequency, and there was an anti-phase relationship between the two objects. The main novelty of the present study is that this bias can be transferred to an unrelated task. While the current study extends Peters and colleagues' findings to a different task context, the lack of a thorough, direct comparison with Peters et al. limits the clarity of the novel insights provided.

   thank you very much for your attention to the behavioral data and its relevance to the study by Peters et al. (2020). We have noticed that there are similarities in some results between the two studies, which also indicates the stability of the relevant phenomena from one aspect.

   However, we would also like to further explain the differences between this study and the study by Peters et al. In the study by Peters et al., participants memorized four spatial positions that formed the endpoints of two objects (one of which was cued), and their results showed that after the two objects disappeared, attention fluctuated at the theta rhythm between their original positions with an inverse correlation. In contrast, the present study explores the manner of memory maintenance indirectly by leveraging the guiding effect of working memory on attention, effectively avoiding the influence of spatial positions.

   The study by Peters et al. directly examined differences in probe positions, clearly demonstrating that attention undergoes rhythmic changes at the two spatial locations and persists after the objects vanish, but it hardly clarifies the rhythmicity of working memory performance. Whereas the present study directly investigates such performance using the attention-capture effect of working memory, revealing that when maintaining multiple memory items, their attention-capturing capabilities alternate in dominance, i.e., multiple working memory items alternately become priority templates in a rhythmic manner. This is also some new attempts in the research perspective and method of this study.

   The corresponding discussion has been added to the revised part of the paper

   “Similar to the present study, Peters et al. had participants memorize four spatial positions forming the endpoints of two objects (one cued), and their results showed that after the two objects disappeared, attention fluctuated at the theta rhythm between their original positions with an inverse correlation; in contrast, the present study explores the manner of memory maintenance indirectly by leveraging the guiding effect of working memory on attention, effectively avoiding the influence of spatial positions—while Peters et al.’s study, which directly examined differences in probe positions, clearly demonstrates that attention undergoes rhythmic changes at the two spatial locations and persists after the objects vanish, it hardly clarifies the rhythmicity of working memory performance, whereas the present study directly investigates such performance using the attention-capture effect of working memory, revealing that when maintaining multiple memory items, their attention-capturing capabilities alternate in dominance, i.e., multiple working memory items alternately become priority templates in a rhythmic manner.”

   Reviewer #2 (Public review):

   The information provided in the current version of the manuscript is not sufficient to assess the scientific significance of the study.

   thank you very much for pointing out the multiple issues in our manuscript. Due to several revisions of this work, including experimental adjustments, there have been some inconsistencies in details. We appreciate you identifying them one by one. We have made corresponding revisions based on your comments:

   (1) In many cases, the details of the experiments or behavioral tasks described in the main text are not consistent with those provided in the Materials and Methods section. Below, I list only a few of these discrepancies as examples:

   a) For Experiment 1, the Methods section states that the detection stimulus was presented for 2000 ms (lines 494 and 498), but Figure 1 in the main text indicates a duration of 1500 ms.

   we greatly appreciate you catching this inconsistency. We have made unified revisions by referring to the final implemented experimental procedures. Corresponding revisions have been made in the paper：

   b) For Experiment 2, not only is the range of SOAs mentioned in the Methods section inconsistent with that shown in the main text and the corresponding figure, but the task design also differs between sections.

   Thank you for bringing this discrepancy to our attention. We have made unified revisions by referring to the final implemented experimental procedures. The correct SOAs are 233：33：867 ms.

   Corresponding revisions have been made in the paper：

   c) For Experiment 3, the main text indicates that EEG recordings were conducted, but in the Methods section, the EEG recording appears to have been part of Experiment 2 (lines 538-540).

   we’re grateful for you noticing this mix-up. In fact, only Experiment 3 is an EEG experiment, and we have made corresponding corrections in the "Methods" section. Corresponding revisions have been made in the paper: “The remaining components after this process were then projected back into the channel space. We extracted data from -500 ms to 2000 ms relative to cue stimulus presentation in Experiment 3.”

   (2) The results described in the text often do not match what is shown in the corresponding figure. For example:

   a) In lines 171-178, the SOAs at which a significant difference was found between the two conditions do not appear to match those shown in Figure 2A.

   Many thanks for spotting this error. The previous results missed one SOA time, namely 33 ms, leading to a 33 ms difference in time. We have corrected it in the revised manuscript.

   Corresponding revisions have been made in the paper：“Specifically, the capture effect of cued items was significantly greater than that of uncued items at SOAs of 267ms (t(24) = 2.72, p = 0.03, Cohen's d = 1.11), 667ms (t(24) = 2.37, p = 0.03, Cohen's d= 0.97) and 833ms (t(24) = 3.53, p = 0.002, Cohen's d = 1.44), while the capture effect of uncued items was significantly greater than that of cued items at SOAs of 333ms (t(24) = 2.97, p = 0.007, Cohen's d = 1.21), 367ms (t(24) = 2.14, p = 0.04, Cohen's d = 0.87), 433ms (t(24 )= 2.49, p = 0.02, Cohen's d = 1.02), 467ms (t(24)=2.37, p = 0.03, Cohen's d = 0.97) and 567ms (t(24)=2.72, p = 0.02, Cohen's d = 1.11). ”

   (b) In Figure 4, the figure legend (lines 225-228) does not correspond to the content shown in the figure.

   we appreciate you pointing out this oversight. When adjusting the color scheme during the revision of the manuscript, we neglected to revise the legend, which has now been corrected in the revised manuscript.

   Corresponding revisions have been made in the paper：“Figure 4. The red line represents the average across all participants of the Fourier transforms of the differences in capture effects between left and right memory items at the individual level. The gray area represents values below the group average of medians derived from 1000 permutations, with each permutation involving Fourier transforms for each participant. *: p < 0.05.”

   (c) In Figure 9, not sufficient information is provided within the figure or in the text, making it difficult to understand. Consequently, the results described in the text cannot be clearly linked to the figure.

   Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have revised Figure 9 and its legend in the revised manuscript to make them clearer and easier to understand.

   Corresponding revisions have been made in the paper

   (3) Insufficient information is provided regarding the data analysis procedures, particularly the permutation tests used for the data presented in Figures 2B, 4, and 10. The results shown in these figures are critical for the main conclusions drawn in the manuscript.

   we’re thankful for you highlighting this gap. In the revised manuscript, we have provided a more detailed explanation in the "Methods" section, especially regarding the content related to frequency analysis, to make the expression clearer.

   Corresponding revisions have been made in the paper：“As shown in Figure 8, the alpha power (8-14 Hz) induced by cued and uncued items alternated in dominance during the memory retention phase. To quantify this rhythmic alternation, we conducted a spectral analysis following these steps: First, we computed the power difference between cued and uncued items within the 8-14 Hz range during the retention phase. These differences were then downsampled to 100 Hz using a 10 ms window for averaging, generating a one-dimensional time series spanning the 0-2000 ms retention period. This time series was subsequently subjected to amplitude spectrum analysis across frequencies from 1 Hz to 50 Hz using Fourier transformation.

   To assess the statistical significance of the observed spectral features, we employed a permutation test. Specifically, we randomly shuffled the temporal order of the time series of power differences between cued and uncued items—thereby preserving the amplitude distribution of the data while eliminating temporal correlations in the original sequence—and repeated the Fourier transform and spectral analysis for each shuffled time series. This permutation process was replicated 1000 times to generate a null distribution of spectral power values. A frequency component in the original data was considered statistically significant if its power ranked within the top 5% of the corresponding null distribution (p < 0.05).

   We applied the same analytical pipeline to investigate differences in the weighted phase-lag index (wPLI) between the contralateral regions of the two items and the prefrontal cortex during the retention phase. Specifically, wPLI differences (i.e., the difference between the two conditions) were computed, downsampled to 100 Hz using a 10 ms window for averaging to generate a time series spanning 0-2000 ms, and then subjected to amplitude spectrum analysis (1-50 Hz) using Fourier transformation. Significance was assessed via the identical permutation test procedure described above (randomly shuffling the temporal order of the difference time series).”

   Read the original source
4. 

   Version published to 10.7554/elife.108017.2 on eLife

   Sep 23, 2025
5. 

   Version published to 10.7554/elife.108017 on eLife

   Sep 23, 2025
6. 

   Version published to 10.7554/elife.108017.1 on eLife

   Aug 20, 2025
7. 

   eLife

   Aug 19, 2025

   eLife Assessment

   This valuable study reports evidence that items maintained in working memory can bias attention in an oscillatory manner, with the attentional capture effect fluctuating at theta frequency. The study provides incomplete evidence that this dynamic attentional bias is associated with oscillatory neural mechanisms, particularly in the alpha and theta bands, as measured by EEG. The study will be relevant for researchers studying attention, working memory, and neural oscillations, particularly those interested in how memory and perception interact over time.

   Read the original source
8. 

   eLife

   Aug 19, 2025

   Reviewer #1 (Public review):

   Summary:

   In the presented paper, Lu and colleagues focus on how items held in working memory bias someone's attention. In a series of three experiments, they utilized a similar paradigm in which subjects were asked to maintain two colored squares in memory for a short and variable time. After this delay, they either tested one of the memory items or asked subjects to perform a search task.

   In the search task, items could share colors with the memory items, and the authors were interested in how these would capture attention, using reaction time as a proxy. The behavioral data suggest that attention oscillates between the two items. At different maintenance intervals, the authors observed that items in memory captured different amounts of attention (attentional capture effect).

   This attentional bias …

   Reviewer #1 (Public review):

   Summary:

   In the presented paper, Lu and colleagues focus on how items held in working memory bias someone's attention. In a series of three experiments, they utilized a similar paradigm in which subjects were asked to maintain two colored squares in memory for a short and variable time. After this delay, they either tested one of the memory items or asked subjects to perform a search task.

   In the search task, items could share colors with the memory items, and the authors were interested in how these would capture attention, using reaction time as a proxy. The behavioral data suggest that attention oscillates between the two items. At different maintenance intervals, the authors observed that items in memory captured different amounts of attention (attentional capture effect).

   This attentional bias fluctuates over time at approximately the theta frequency range of the EEG spectrum. This part of the study is a replication of Peters and colleagues (2020).

   Next, the authors used EEG recordings to better understand the neural mechanisms underlying this process. They present results suggesting that this attentional capture effect is positively correlated with the mean amplitude of alpha power. Furthermore, they show that the weighted phase lag index (wPLI) between the alpha and theta bands across different electrodes also fluctuates at the theta frequency.

   Strengths:

   The authors focus on an interesting and timely topic: how items in working memory can bias our attention. This line of research could improve our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying working memory, specifically how we maintain multiple items and how these interact with attentional processes. This approach is intriguing because it can shed light on neuronal mechanisms not only through behavioral measures but also by incorporating brain recordings, which is definitely a strength.

   Subjects performed several blocks of experiments, ranging from 4 to 30, over a few days, depending on the experiment. This makes the results - especially those from behavioral experiments 2 and 3, which included the most repetitions - particularly robust.

   Weaknesses:

   One of the main EEG results is based on the weighted phase lag index (wPLI) between oscillations in the alpha and theta bands. In my opinion, this is problematic, as wPLI measures the locking of oscillations at the same frequency. It quantifies how reliably the phase difference stays the same over time. If these oscillations have different frequencies, the phase difference cannot remain consistent. Even worse, modeling data show that even very small fluctuations in frequency between signals make wPLI artificially small (Cohen, 2015).

   Another result from the electrophysiology data shows that the attentional capture effect is positively correlated with the mean amplitude of alpha power. In the presented scatter plot, it seems that this result is driven by one outlier. Unfortunately, Pearson correlation is very sensitive to outliers, and the entire analysis can be driven by an extreme case. I extracted data from the plot and obtained a Pearson correlation of 0.4, similar to what the authors report. However, the Spearman correlation, which is robust against outliers, was only 0.13 (p = 0.57), indicating a non-significant relationship.

   The behavioral data are interesting, but in my opinion, they closely replicate Peters and colleagues (2020) using a different paradigm. In that study, participants memorized four spatial positions that formed the endpoints of two objects, and one object was cued. Similarly, reaction times fluctuated at theta frequency, and there was an anti-phase relationship between the two objects. The main novelty of the present study is that this bias can be transferred to an unrelated task. While the current study extends Peters and colleagues' findings to a different task context, the lack of a thorough, direct comparison with Peters et al. limits the clarity of the novel insights provided.

   Cohen, M. X. (2015). Effects of time lag and frequency matching on phase-based connectivity. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 250, 137-146.

   Peters, B., Kaiser, J., Rahm, B., & Bledowski, C. (2020). Object-based attention prioritizes working memory contents at a theta rhythm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(6), 1250-1256.

   Read the original source
9. 

   eLife

   Aug 19, 2025

   Reviewer #2 (Public review):

   The information provided in the current version of the manuscript is not sufficient to assess the scientific significance of the study.

   (1) In many cases, the details of the experiments or behavioral tasks described in the main text are not consistent with those provided in the Materials and Methods section. Below, I list only a few of these discrepancies as examples:

   a) For Experiment 1, the Methods section states that the detection stimulus was presented for 2000 ms (lines 494 and 498), but Figure 1 in the main text indicates a duration of 1500 ms.

   b) For Experiment 2, not only is the range of SOAs mentioned in the Methods section inconsistent with that shown in the main text and the corresponding figure, but the task design also differs between sections.

   c) For Experiment 3, the main text indicates that …

   Reviewer #2 (Public review):

   The information provided in the current version of the manuscript is not sufficient to assess the scientific significance of the study.

   (1) In many cases, the details of the experiments or behavioral tasks described in the main text are not consistent with those provided in the Materials and Methods section. Below, I list only a few of these discrepancies as examples:

   a) For Experiment 1, the Methods section states that the detection stimulus was presented for 2000 ms (lines 494 and 498), but Figure 1 in the main text indicates a duration of 1500 ms.

   b) For Experiment 2, not only is the range of SOAs mentioned in the Methods section inconsistent with that shown in the main text and the corresponding figure, but the task design also differs between sections.

   c) For Experiment 3, the main text indicates that EEG recordings were conducted, but in the Methods section, the EEG recording appears to have been part of Experiment 2 (lines 538-540).

   (2) The results described in the text often do not match what is shown in the corresponding figure. For example:

   a) In lines 171-178, the SOAs at which a significant difference was found between the two conditions do not appear to match those shown in Figure 2A.

   b) In Figure 4, the figure legend (lines 225-228) does not correspond to the content shown in the figure.

   c) In Figure 9, not sufficient information is provided within the figure or in the text, making it difficult to understand. Consequently, the results described in the text cannot be clearly linked to the figure.

   (3) Insufficient information is provided regarding the data analysis procedures, particularly the permutation tests used for the data presented in Figures 2B, 4, and 10. The results shown in these figures are critical for the main conclusions drawn in the manuscript.

   Given these issues, it is not possible to provide a detailed review of the study, particularly regarding its scientific significance.

   Read the original source
10. 

    Version published to 10.1101/2025.06.18.660380 on bioRxiv

    Jun 21, 2025