The University of Chicago Header Logo

Connection

Edward Vogel to Attention

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Edward Vogel has written about Attention.
Edward Vogel
Connection Strength
11.675
Attention
  1. Individual differences in working memory and attentional control continue to predict memory performance despite extensive learning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2025 May; 154(5):1268-1283.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.678
  2. Pupillometry signatures of sustained attention and working memory. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022 Nov; 84(8):2472-2482.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.576
  3. Attention fluctuations impact ongoing maintenance of information in working memory. Psychon Bull Rev. 2020 Dec; 27(6):1269-1278.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.508
  4. Real-time triggering reveals concurrent lapses of attention and working memory. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 08; 3(8):808-816.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.457
  5. Dissecting the Neural Focus of Attention Reveals Distinct Processes for Spatial Attention and Object-Based Storage in Visual Working Memory. Psychol Sci. 2019 04; 30(4):526-540.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.450
  6. Neural Evidence for the Contribution of Active Suppression During Working Memory Filtering. Cereb Cortex. 2019 02 01; 29(2):529-543.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.448
  7. Contralateral Delay Activity Indexes Working Memory Storage, Not the Current Focus of Spatial Attention. J Cogn Neurosci. 2018 08; 30(8):1185-1196.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.424
  8. Contralateral Delay Activity Tracks Fluctuations in Working Memory Performance. J Cogn Neurosci. 2018 09; 30(9):1229-1240.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.416
  9. Confident failures: Lapses of working memory reveal a metacognitive blind spot. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2017 Jul; 79(5):1506-1523.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.401
  10. Reducing failures of working memory with performance feedback. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 10; 23(5):1520-1527.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.381
  11. The contribution of attentional lapses to individual differences in visual working memory capacity. J Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Aug; 27(8):1601-16.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.343
  12. Attention: feedback focuses a wandering mind. Nat Neurosci. 2015 Mar; 18(3):327-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.341
  13. A soft handoff of attention between cerebral hemispheres. Curr Biol. 2014 May 19; 24(10):1133-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.321
  14. Working memory and fluid intelligence: capacity, attention control, and secondary memory retrieval. Cogn Psychol. 2014 Jun; 71:1-26.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.317
  15. Neural limits to representing objects still within view. J Neurosci. 2013 May 08; 33(19):8257-63.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.301
  16. Swapping or dropping? Electrophysiological measures of difficulty during multiple object tracking. Cognition. 2013 Feb; 126(2):213-23.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.291
  17. Neural measures of dynamic changes in attentive tracking load. J Cogn Neurosci. 2012 Feb; 24(2):440-50.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.266
  18. Visual search demands dictate reliance on working memory storage. J Neurosci. 2011 Apr 20; 31(16):6199-207.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.261
  19. Individual differences in recovery time from attentional capture. Psychol Sci. 2011 Mar; 22(3):361-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.258
  20. Delineating the neural signatures of tracking spatial position and working memory during attentive tracking. J Neurosci. 2011 Jan 12; 31(2):659-68.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.256
  21. Shape and color conjunction stimuli are represented as bound objects in visual working memory. Neuropsychologia. 2011 May; 49(6):1632-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.254
  22. Human variation in overriding attentional capture. J Neurosci. 2009 Jul 08; 29(27):8726-33.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.231
  23. Attentional enhancement during multiple-object tracking. Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Apr; 16(2):411-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.226
  24. Neural measures of individual differences in selecting and tracking multiple moving objects. J Neurosci. 2008 Apr 16; 28(16):4183-91.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.212
  25. Selective storage and maintenance of an object's features in visual working memory. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Feb; 15(1):223-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.209
  26. Recently attended masks are less effective. Percept Psychophys. 2008 Jan; 70(1):96-103.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.208
  27. The time course of consolidation in visual working memory. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Dec; 32(6):1436-51.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.193
  28. Pushing around the locus of selection: evidence for the flexible-selection hypothesis. J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Dec; 17(12):1907-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.180
  29. Fractionating working memory: consolidation and maintenance are independent processes. Psychol Sci. 2005 Feb; 16(2):106-13.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.170
  30. Delayed working memory consolidation during the attentional blink. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Dec; 9(4):739-43.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.146
  31. Storage in Visual Working Memory Recruits a Content-Independent Pointer System. Psychol Sci. 2022 10; 33(10):1680-1694.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.143
  32. The visual arrays task: Visual storage capacity or attention control? J Exp Psychol Gen. 2021 Dec; 150(12):2525-2551.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.135
  33. Sustained Attention and Spatial Attention Distinctly Influence Long-term Memory Encoding. J Cogn Neurosci. 2021 09 01; 33(10):2132-2148.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.134
  34. Controlling the Flow of Distracting Information in Working Memory. Cereb Cortex. 2021 06 10; 31(7):3323-3337.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.132
  35. Perceptual Grouping Reveals Distinct Roles for Sustained Slow Wave Activity and Alpha Oscillations in Working Memory. J Cogn Neurosci. 2021 06 01; 33(7):1354-1364.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.132
  36. Perturbing Neural Representations of Working Memory with Task-irrelevant Interruption. J Cogn Neurosci. 2020 03; 32(3):558-569.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.117
  37. Item-specific delay activity demonstrates concurrent storage of multiple active neural representations in working memory. PLoS Biol. 2019 04; 17(4):e3000239.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.114
  38. Electrophysiological evidence for a postperceptual locus of suppression during the attentional blink. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Dec; 24(6):1656-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.111
  39. Alpha-Band Oscillations Enable Spatially and Temporally Resolved Tracking of Covert Spatial Attention. Psychol Sci. 2017 Jul; 28(7):929-941.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.100
  40. Working memory delay activity predicts individual differences in cognitive abilities. J Cogn Neurosci. 2015 May; 27(5):853-65.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.084
  41. Electrophysiological evidence for failures of item individuation in crowded visual displays. J Cogn Neurosci. 2014 10; 26(10):2298-309.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.080
  42. Evidence for a fixed capacity limit in attending multiple locations. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2014 Mar; 14(1):62-77.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.080
  43. A common discrete resource for visual working memory and visual search. Psychol Sci. 2013 Jun; 24(6):929-38.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.075
  44. Impaired contingent attentional capture predicts reduced working memory capacity in schizophrenia. PLoS One. 2012; 7(11):e48586.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.073
  45. Statistical learning induces discrete shifts in the allocation of working memory resources. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Dec; 36(6):1419-29.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  46. Perceptual expertise enhances the resolution but not the number of representations in working memory. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Feb; 15(1):215-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.052
  47. Electrophysiological measures of maintaining representations in visual working memory. Cortex. 2007 Jan; 43(1):77-94.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.048
  48. Event-related potential measures of visual working memory. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2006 Oct; 37(4):286-91.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.048
  49. Interactions between attention and working memory. Neuroscience. 2006 Apr 28; 139(1):201-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.045
  50. Voluntazy and automatic attentional control of visual working memory. Percept Psychophys. 2002 Jul; 64(5):754-63.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  51. Visual search remains efficient when visual working memory is full. Psychol Sci. 2001 May; 12(3):219-24.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  52. Sensory gain control (amplification) as a mechanism of selective attention: electrophysiological and neuroimaging evidence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998 Aug 29; 353(1373):1257-70.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.027
  53. Clear evidence for item limits in visual working memory. Cogn Psychol. 2017 09; 97:79-97.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.025
  54. Word meanings can be accessed but not reported during the attentional blink. Nature. 1996 Oct 17; 383(6601):616-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.024
  55. Precision in visual working memory reaches a stable plateau when individual item limits are exceeded. J Neurosci. 2011 Jan 19; 31(3):1128-38.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  56. Dynamic neuroplasticity after human prefrontal cortex damage. Neuron. 2010 Nov 04; 68(3):401-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  57. The comparison of visual working memory representations with perceptual inputs. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Aug; 35(4):1140-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.