While working memory (WM) allows us to store past information, its function is to guide future behavior. Given this role, the tight link between how WMs are maintained and how they are read out to be transformed into context-appropriate actions remains relatively unexplored. Beyond helping us understand memory-guided behavior, focusing on WM readout may also help us better understand the neural basis of memory maintenance.

The transition to principal investigator (PI), or lab leader, can be challenging, partially due to the need to fulfil new managerial and leadership responsibilities. One key aspect of this role, which is often not explicitly discussed, is creating a supportive lab environment. Here, we present ten simple rules to guide the new PI in the development of their own positive and thriving lab atmosphere. These rules were written and voted on collaboratively, by the students and mentees of Professor Mark Stokes, who inspired this piece.

Attention can be allocated in working memory (WM) to select and privilege relevant content. It is unclear whether attention selects individual features or whole objects in WM. Here, we used behavioral measures, eye-tracking, and EEG to test the hypothesis that attention spreads between an object's features in WM. Twenty-six participants completed a WM task that asked them to recall the angle of one of two oriented, colored bars after a delay while EEG and eye-tracking data were collected. During the delay, an orthogonal “incidental task” cued the color of one item for a match/mismatch judgment. On congruent trials (50%), the cued item was probed for subsequent orientation recall; on incongruent trials (50%), the other memory item was probed. As predicted, selecting the color of an object in WM brought other features of the cued object into an attended state as revealed by EEG decoding, oscillatory α-power, gaze bias, and improved orientation recall performance. Together, the results show that attentional selection spreads between an object's features in WM, consistent with object-based attentional selection. Analyses of neural processing at recall revealed that the selected object was automatically compared with the probe, whether it was the target for recall or not. This provides a potential mechanism for the observed benefits of nonpredictive cueing in WM, where a selected item is prioritized for subsequent decision-making.

Working memory (WM) is strongly influenced by attention. In visual WM tasks, recall performance can be improved by an attention-guiding cue presented before encoding (precue) or during maintenance (retrocue). Although precues and retrocues recruit a similar frontoparietal control network, the two are likely to exhibit some processing differences, because precues invite anticipation of upcoming information whereas retrocues may guide prioritization, protection, and selection of information already in mind. Here we explored the behavioral and electrophysiological differences between precueing and retrocueing in a new visual WM task designed to permit a direct comparison between cueing conditions. We found marked differences in ERP profiles between the precue and retrocue conditions. In line with precues primarily generating an anticipatory shift of attention toward the location of an upcoming item, we found a robust lateralization in late cue-evoked potentials associated with target anticipation. Retrocues elicited a different pattern of ERPs that was compatible with an early selection mechanism, but not with stimulus anticipation. In contrast to the distinct ERP patterns, alpha-band (8–14 Hz) lateralization was indistinguishable between cue types (reflecting, in both conditions, the location of the cued item). We speculate that, whereas alpha-band lateralization after a precue is likely to enable anticipatory attention, lateralization after a retrocue may instead enable the controlled spatiotopic access to recently encoded visual information.

Visual STM (VSTM) is thought to be related to visual attention in several ways. Attention controls access to VSTM during memory encoding and plays a role in the maintenance of stored information by strengthening memorized content. We investigated the involvement of visual attention in recall from VSTM. In two experiments, we measured electrophysiological markers of attention in a memory search task with varying intervals between VSTM encoding and recall, and so we were able to track recoding of representations in memory. Results confirmed the involvement of attention in VSTM recall. However, the amplitude of the N2pc and N3rs components, which mark orienting of attention and search within VSTM, decreased as a function of delay. Conversely, the amplitude of the P3 and sustained posterior contralateral negativity components increased as a function of delay, effectively the opposite of the N2pc and N3rs modulations. These effects were only observed when verbal memory was not taxed. Thus, the results suggested that gradual recoding from visuospatial orienting of attention into verbal recall mechanisms takes place from short to long retention intervals. Interestingly, recall at longer delays was faster than at short delays, indicating that verbal representation is coupled with faster responses. These results extend the orienting-of-attention hypothesis by including an account of representational recoding during short-term consolidation and its consequences for recall from VSTM.