Attentional prioritization enhances the accessibility of neural representations during working memory maintenance

Abstract Given the limited capacity of working memory (WM), prioritization is essential for efficient information processing. Whether prioritization acts primarily at encoding, or dynamically shapes representations during maintenance, is currently unclear. Here, we employed a two-item delayed-match-to-sample task and compared prioritization conditions in which the testing order of items was either known in advance or not. Behaviorally, prioritization selectively reduced guess rates, without affecting precision. Using multivariate pattern analysis, we decoded stimulus information from EEG voltage and indexed internal attention using alpha-band patterns. Prioritization did not alter decodable representations during encoding. During maintenance, however, prioritization enhanced both voltage-based decodability and alpha power-based decodability for the currently prioritized item. Mediation analyses further indicated that alpha-based attentional signals influenced behavior indirectly, via voltage-based representational strength, which is consistent with the idea that internal attention supports performance by strengthening prioritized representations during memory maintenance. Significance Statement WM is capacity-limited, requiring the prioritization of information most relevant to current task demands. Whether prioritization is established at encoding or emerges during maintenance, and how it improves working memory performance, remains unclear. Comparing conditions with and without advance priority knowledge, we found that prioritization occurred primarily during maintenance rather than encoding. We also found that prioritization improved performance by directing internal attention to prioritized items, strengthening their neural representations and increasing their accessibility. This finding provides insight into the flexibility of working memory in the updating of already-encoded information. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare no competing financial interests.