Working memory (WM) is an evolving concept. Our understanding of the neural functions that support WM develops iteratively alongside the approaches used to study it, and both can be profoundly shaped by available tools and prevailing theoretical paradigms. Here, the organizers of the 2024 Working Memory Symposium—inspired by this year's meeting—highlight current trends and looming questions in WM research. This review is organized into sections describing (1) ongoing efforts to characterize WM function across sensory modalities, (2) the growing appreciation that WM representations are malleable to context and future actions, (3) the enduring problem of how multiple WM items and features are structured and integrated, and (4) new insights about whether WM shares function with other cognitive processes that have conventionally been considered distinct. This review aims to chronicle where the field is headed and calls attention to issues that are paramount for future research.

In this short perspective, we reflect upon our tendency to use oversimplified and idiosyncratic tasks in a quest to discover general mechanisms of working memory. We discuss how the work of Mark Stokes and collaborators has looked beyond localized, temporally persistent neural activity and shifted focus toward the importance of distributed, dynamic neural codes for working memory. A critical lesson from this work is that using simplified tasks does not automatically simplify the neural computations supporting behavior (even if we wish it were so). Moreover, Stokes' insights about multidimensional dynamics highlight the flexibility of the neural codes underlying cognition and have pushed the field to look beyond static measures of working memory.

Feature-based attention is the ability to selectively attend to a particular feature (e.g., attend to red but not green items while looking for the ketchup bottle in your refrigerator), and steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEPs) measured from the human EEG signal have been used to track the neural deployment of feature-based attention. Although many published studies suggest that we can use trial-by-trial cues to enhance relevant feature information (i.e., greater SSVEP response to the cued color), there is ongoing debate about whether participants may likewise use trial-by-trial cues to voluntarily ignore a particular feature. Here, we report the results of a preregistered study in which participants either were cued to attend or to ignore a color. Counter to prior work, we found no attention-related modulation of the SSVEP response in either cue condition. However, positive control analyses revealed that participants paid some degree of attention to the cued color (i.e., we observed a greater P300 component to targets in the attended vs. the unattended color). In light of these unexpected null results, we conducted a focused review of methodological considerations for studies of feature-based attention using SSVEPs. In the review, we quantify potentially important stimulus parameters that have been used in the past (e.g., stimulation frequency, trial counts) and we discuss the potential importance of these and other task factors (e.g., feature-based priming) for SSVEP studies.

Neural measures of working memory storage, such as the contralateral delay activity (CDA), are powerful tools in working memory research. CDA amplitude is sensitive to working memory load, reaches an asymptote at known behavioral limits, and predicts individual differences in capacity. An open question, however, is whether neural measures of load also track trial-by-trial fluctuations in performance. Here, we used a whole-report working memory task to test the relationship between CDA amplitude and working memory performance. If working memory failures are due to decision-based errors and retrieval failures, CDA amplitude would not differentiate good and poor performance trials when load is held constant. If failures arise during storage, then CDA amplitude should track both working memory load and trial-by-trial performance. As expected, CDA amplitude tracked load (Experiment 1), reaching an asymptote at three items. In Experiment 2, we tracked fluctuations in trial-by-trial performance. CDA amplitude was larger (more negative) for high-performance trials compared with low-performance trials, suggesting that fluctuations in performance were related to the successful storage of items. During working memory failures, participants oriented their attention to the correct side of the screen (lateralized P1) and maintained covert attention to the correct side during the delay period (lateralized alpha power suppression). Despite the preservation of attentional orienting, we found impairments consistent with an executive attention theory of individual differences in working memory capacity; fluctuations in executive control (indexed by pretrial frontal theta power) may be to blame for storage failures.

Attentional control and working memory capacity are important cognitive abilities that substantially vary between individuals. Although much is known about how attentional control and working memory capacity relate to each other and to constructs like fluid intelligence, little is known about how trial-by-trial fluctuations in attentional engagement impact trial-by-trial working memory performance. Here, we employ a novel whole-report memory task that allowed us to distinguish between varying levels of attentional engagement in humans performing a working memory task. By characterizing low-performance trials, we can distinguish between models in which working memory performance failures are caused by either (1) complete lapses of attention or (2) variations in attentional control. We found that performance failures increase with set-size and strongly predict working memory capacity. Performance variability was best modeled by an attentional control model of attention, not a lapse model. We examined neural signatures of performance failures by measuring EEG activity while participants performed the whole-report task. The number of items correctly recalled in the memory task was predicted by frontal theta power, with decreased frontal theta power associated with poor performance on the task. In addition, we found that poor performance was not explained by failures of sensory encoding; the P1/N1 response and ocular artifact rates were equivalent for high- and low-performance trials. In all, we propose that attentional lapses alone cannot explain individual differences in working memory performance. Instead, we find that graded fluctuations in attentional control better explain the trial-by-trial differences in working memory that we observe.