Cited by 302Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeural dynamics and brain function

Neural Suppression of Irrelevant Information Underlies Optimal Working Memory Performance

Open access
Zanto, Theodore P., Gazzaley, Adam·2009·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Our ability to focus attention on task-relevant information and ignore distractions is reflected by differential enhancement and suppression of neural activity in sensory cortex (i.e., top-down modulation). Such selective, goal-directed modulation of activity may be intimately related to memory, such that the focus of attention biases the likelihood of successfully maintaining relevant information by limiting interference from irrelevant stimuli. Despite recent studies elucidating the mechanistic overlap between attention and memory, the relationship between top-down modulation of visual processing during working memory (WM) encoding, and subsequent recognition performance has not yet been established. Here, we provide neurophysiological evidence in healthy, young adults that top-down modulation of early visual processing (< 200 ms from stimulus onset) is intimately related to subsequent WM performance, such that the likelihood of successfully remembering relevant information is associated with limiting interference from irrelevant stimuli. The consequences of a failure to ignore distractors on recognition performance was replicated for two types of feature-based memory, motion direction and color. Moreover, attention to irrelevant stimuli was reflected neurally during the WM maintenance period as an increased memory load. These results suggest that neural enhancement of relevant information is not the primary determinant of high-level performance, but rather optimal WM performance is dependent on effectively filtering irrelevant information through neural suppression to prevent overloading a limited memory capacity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.4621-08.2009

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Any information not relevant to satisfying compulsions is not only meaningless but may be entirely ignored.

    “Any information not relevant to satisfying compulsions is not only meaningless but may be entirely ignored, which is consistent with observations of human behaviour [6,5] (i.e. one may be unable to perceive something in the stream of sensorimotor stimuli because it is filtered out).”

    From Compression, The Fermi Paradox and Artificial Super-Intelligence (2022) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Discussion (page not available in our copy) reports that neural responses to irrelevant visual stimuli can be suppressed early and that effective filtering supports working-memory performance. It does not establish that such stimuli are entirely unperceived, or address whether information unrelated to satisfying compulsions is meaningless. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Inability to filter irrelevant sensory stimuli may impair performance on executive function tasks.

    “In addition, the inability to filter irrelevant sensory stimuli may also impair performance on executive function tasks [33].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zanto, T. P., & Gazzaley, A.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Gazzaley, Adam
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2009-03-11
Volume
29
Issue
10
Pages
3059-3066
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2080254032
Cited by
302
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 23
FWCI
10.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ellison Medical Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (R01-AG30395, K08AG025221, R01AG030395)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
working memory, top-down modulation, distractor suppression, attention, visual cortex, memory load, recognition memory, feature-based memory, movement direction, color memory, interference, memory capacity
MeSH terms
Adult, Color Perception, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Motion Perception, Neural Inhibition, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Visual Perception, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review