Fig 1.
Schematic illustration of the sequence of events in a given trial.
In all experiments, the three conditions of memory (iconic memory, IM; fragile memory, FM; working memory, WM) were presented. In Experiment 1, an endogenous cue consisting of a digit, appeared before the memory array and predicted the location of the probe that was subsequently signaled by the retro-cue or by the post-cue. In Experiment 2 and 3, an exogenous cue consisted of a 100-ms thickening of the contour of one of the six placeholders was instead presented before the memory array. In Experiment 2 the exogenous cue was not predictive, while in Experiment 3 it predicted the opposite location as the most likely to be probed.
Fig 2.
Mean accuracy (percentage of correct) of the objective task as a function of attentional condition (Valid, Neutral, Invalid) and of memory condition (iconic memory, IM; fragile memory, FM; working memory, WM) in Experiment 1.
The error bars represent the standard error of the means.
Table 1.
Means, standard errors and 95% confidence intervals of accuracy and confidence ratings for the two experiments, as a function of attentional condition and memory type.
Fig 3.
Mean accuracy (percentage of correct) of the objective task as a function of attentional condition (Valid, Neutral, Invalid) and of memory condition (iconic memory, IM; fragile memory, FM; working memory, WM) in Experiment 2.
The error bars represent the standard error of the means.