Working Memory
Retro-Cue Task
Also called: retrocue task, retrospective cue task, retro-cue paradigm, retro-cue effect
Measure how much a cue shown during the memory delay improves visual working memory, as Cowan's K after retro-cues and neutral cues.
8-10 minTimed: desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 288
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 3
What it measures
Measures how much attention to one item held in visual working memory improves memory for it. Colored squares appear for 250 ms; during the delay an arrow points to the square that will be tested, or arrows point to every square, and participants report whether one square came back in the same color.
Constructs
- Visual working memory
- Attention in working memory
- Working-memory capacity
Research uses
- Working memory and attention research
- Aging and development studies
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The retro-cue task measures how attention to one item held in visual working memory improves memory for that item. Four colored squares appear for 250 ms at places on a circle around a fixation cross. A cue appears 1,000 ms after the squares: on retro-cue trials an arrow at the cross points to the square that will be tested, and on neutral trials arrows point to every square, so the cue gives no hint. The two kinds of trial are intermixed. 1,000 ms after the cue, one square comes back at a square's place, in its own color or in a new color, and participants press the left arrow key if the color is the same or the right arrow key if it changed.
More about the paradigm
Griffin and Nobre (2003) found similar benefits and costs for spatial cues shown before an array of colored items (pre-cues) and during the delay after it (retro-cues). Landman, Spekreijse and Lamme (2003) found that a cue during the delay improved change detection. Souza and Oberauer (2016) reviewed the retro-cue effect and the accounts of it.
Capacity after each cue is Cowan's K = N x (H - FA) (Cowan, 2001), the estimate suited to a single probe (Rouder et al., 2011). The primary score, the retro-cue benefit, is K after a retro-cue minus K after a neutral cue. Settings add invalid retro-cues, which test another square and give the cost of a wrong cue, and pre-cue trials, with the arrow before the squares, which give the pre-cue benefit. Each display is set in whole screen frames at the measured refresh rate, and its shown length is saved with every trial.
Scores
- Retro-Cue Benefititems
- Cowan's K after a retro-cue minus K after a neutral cue.
- Higher means a larger gain from the cue
- K After a Retro-Cueitems
- Cowan's K, N x (hit rate - false alarm rate), on valid retro-cue trials.
- Higher is better
- K After a Neutral Cueitems
- Cowan's K on neutral trials, where arrows point to every square.
- Higher is better
- Accuracy After a Retro-Cue%
- Share of answered retro-cue trials answered correctly.
- Higher is better
- Accuracy After a Neutral Cue%
- Share of answered neutral trials answered correctly.
- Higher is better
- Median RT After a Retro-Cuems
- Median time from the probe to a correct answer on retro-cue trials, over answers at or after 100 ms.
- Lower is faster
- Median RT After a Neutral Cuems
- Median time from the probe to a correct answer on neutral trials, over answers at or after 100 ms.
- Lower is faster
- Pre-Cue Benefititems
- Pre-cue setting: K after a pre-cue minus K after a neutral cue.
- Higher means a larger gain from the cue
- K After a Pre-Cueitems
- Pre-cue setting: Cowan's K when the arrow came before the squares.
- Higher is better
- Invalid Cue Costitems
- Validity setting: K after a valid retro-cue minus K after an invalid one.
- Higher means a larger cost of a wrong cue
- K After an Invalid Cueitems
- Validity setting: Cowan's K when another square than the cued one was tested.
- Informational
- Hit Rate by Cue%
- Share of answered changed probes reported as different, after each kind of cue.
- Higher is better
- False Alarm Rate by Cue%
- Share of answered unchanged probes reported as different, after each kind of cue.
- Lower is better
- Accuracy%
- Share of all answered trials answered correctly.
- Higher is better
- Dropped Frame Rate%
- Share of display frames the browser dropped.
- Above 0.05 is flagged for review
Use and evidence
288 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 46% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 88 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 86 |
| 2024 | 67 |
| 2023 | 47 |
| 2022 | 51 |
| 2021 | 37 |
| 2020 | 46 |
| 2019 | 40 |
| 2018 | 39 |
| 2017 | 39 |
| 2016 | 33 |
| 2015 | 25 |
| 2014 | 20 |
| 2013 | 10 |
| 2012 | 14 |
| 2011 | 12 |
| 2010 | 6 |
| 2009 | 3 |
| 2008 | 5 |
| 2007 | 2 |
| 2006 | 2 |
| 2005 | 2 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 1 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 2 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 53
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 3
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Display
- 4 colored squares 30 pixels wide (2 to 8 in the settings) at places on a circle 110 pixels around a black cross, on gray.
- Colors
- 9 colors, none repeated in an array; a changed square takes a color that was not in the array.
- Timing
- Cross 500 ms, squares 250 ms, blank 1,000 ms, cue 250 ms, blank 1,000 ms, then one square until an answer, within 3,000 ms.
- Cues
- Retro-cue: an arrow at the cross points to the square that will be tested. Neutral cue: arrows point to every square.
- Probe
- One square at the cued place, or at any square's place after a neutral cue, in the same or a new color, each on half the trials.
- Keys
- Left arrow for the same color, right arrow for a different color.
- Length
- 48 retro-cue and 48 neutral trials (24 to 72 each), intermixed, with a break after every 48.
- Practice
- 8 trials with feedback, 4 with each cue.
- Validity
- Retro-cues are valid on every trial by default; at 80%, 75% or 67%, added invalid trials test another square.
- Pre-cue
- Optional intermixed trials with the arrow 500 ms before the squares and the same 2,250 ms from the squares to the probe.
- Timing check
- Displays are set in whole frames at the measured refresh rate; more than 5% dropped frames is flagged for review.
Griffin and Nobre (2003) used four colored crosses, one in each quadrant, and in a second experiment a probe at an item's place whose color matched it or not. This version uses the colors of the change detection task, 2 to 8 places, and one probe square.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: retro_cue_test from the scored run, left arrow for the same color or right arrow for a different color (chance 50%, half the probes changed in each cue condition), from the probe until 3,000 ms after it. Below chance invalidates and not above chance is flagged. One key on 90% of answers invalidates when accuracy is not above chance. Missed responses and responses under 100 ms follow the timed-test rule. More than 5% of display frames dropped is flagged for review.
Why these rules
Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). Missed responses and responses under 100 ms keep the platform's timed-test rule: more than max(3, 25%) missed responses or more than max(2, 20%) responses under 100 ms invalidate, and any is flagged. A response under 100 ms cannot be a reaction to the stimulus. The array is shown for 250 ms and each condition is defined by when the cue appears, so a display that drops frames changes what was shown.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Squares per array | 4 | 2 to 8 |
| Trials per cue | 48 | 24 to 72 |
| Retro-cue validity | 100% (standard) | 100% (standard), 80%, 75%, 67% |
| Pre-cue trials | Off | On or off |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Retro-Cue Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Griffin and Nobre, 2003; Landman, Spekreijse and Lamme, 2003), with the standard settings (squares per array: 4; trials per cue: 48; retro-cue validity: 100%; pre-cue trials: Off). The main score was retro-cue benefit (Cowan's K after a retro-cue minus K after a neutral cue).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Griffin, I. C., & Nobre, A. C. (2003). Orienting attention to locations in internal representations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(8), 1176-1194. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903322598139
- Landman, R., Spekreijse, H., & Lamme, V. A. F. (2003). Large capacity storage of integrated objects before change blindness. Vision Research, 43(2), 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(02)00402-9Cues during the delay of a change detection task.
- Souza, A. S., & Oberauer, K. (2016). In search of the focus of attention in working memory: 13 years of the retro-cue effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(7), 1839-1860. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1108-5Review of the retro-cue effect.
- Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922Cowan's K.
Source papers
- Griffin IC, Nobre AC (2003). Orienting attention to locations in internal representations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(8):1176-1194.Paradigm source, Adults
- Landman R, Spekreijse H, Lamme VAF (2003). Large capacity storage of integrated objects before change blindness. Vision Research, 43(2):149-164.Paradigm source, Adults
- Souza AS, Oberauer K (2016). In search of the focus of attention in working memory: 13 years of the retro-cue effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(7):1839-1860.Paradigm source, Adults
- Cowan N (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1):87-114. Rouder JN, Morey RD, Morey CC, Cowan N (2011). How to measure working memory capacity in the change detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(2):324-330.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Retro-Cue Task take?
About 8 to 10 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Retro-Cue Benefit, K After a Retro-Cue, K After a Neutral Cue, Accuracy After a Retro-Cue, Accuracy After a Neutral Cue, Median RT After a Retro-Cue, Median RT After a Neutral Cue, Pre-Cue Benefit, K After a Pre-Cue, Invalid Cue Cost, K After an Invalid Cue, Hit Rate by Cue, False Alarm Rate by Cue, Accuracy and Dropped Frame Rate. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Retro-Cue Task used in research?
288 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 46% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 88 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Retro-Cue Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 3 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Which settings can a researcher change?
Squares per array (2 to 8), trials per cue (24 to 72), retro-cue validity (100% (standard), 80%, 75%, 67%) and pre-cue trials (On or off). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.