Research
We are limited in our information processing capacity. Yet, we can successfully navigate our surroundings and establish complicated tasks. This is thanks to the effective interplay between different cognitive mechanisms including attention, memory, and cognitive control. Our research focuses on investigating how these cognitive systems interact to guide our behavior.
Bringing information to mind
How and when do we bring information to mind? Information acquired a while ago are stored in the depth of our mind, in episodic memory. On the other hand, currently relevant information is kept in the focus of our mind, in working memory. Although often studied independently, these two memory systems are in constant interplay.
Our research program asks when information is reactivated into working memory, when it remains latent, and how these transitions are adaptively controlled. We propose that working memory is not merely a passive storage buffer, but a mechanism that supports flexible behavior by selectively reactivating long-term memory representations when task demands change.
Supported by multiple grants from TÜBİTAK and Sabancı University, our lab has examined this interplay across a range of conditions. We study how switching to novel tasks (Şentürk et al., 2024) and changing contexts (Özdemir et al., 2024) trigger memory reactivation; how anticipating interference shapes whether information is proactively maintained or offloaded (Ataseven et al., 2022); how memory representations guide attention (Yücen, Türk, & Günseli, 2023); how increasing memory load alters the balance between active maintenance and retrieval (Yılmaz et al., in prep); and how mental operations on stored information recruit working memory even in the absence of new sensory input (Algın et al., in prep; Yücel et al., in-principle acceptance).
Together, these studies aim to characterize working memory as a control system for memory use, governing when past information is brought to mind to meet the demands of a changing environment.
Şentürk, Y. D., Ünver, N., Demircan, C., Egner, T., Günseli, E. (2024). The reactivation of task rules triggers the reactivation of task-relevant items. Link
Özdemir, Ş., Şentürk, Y.D., Ünver, N., Demircan, C., Olivers, C.N.L, Egner, T., & Günseli, E. (2024) Effects of context changes on memory reactivation. Link
Segmented memories of a continous world
We experience the world as a continuous stream, yet our perception and memories are organized into discrete events. Moments that share a common location, goal, or emotional context tend to be perceived and remembered as belonging together, whereas transitions between contexts often mark boundaries in memory.
Our work investigates what determines when and how these event boundaries emerge. Across multiple studies, we show that event segmentation is primarily driven by transitions across stable contextual states, rather than by prediction errors alone. Even when changes are expected, shifts in stable contextual features—such as task rules, perceptual structure, or goals—reliably segment episodic memory (Güler, Serin, & Günseli, 2025; Güler, Adıgüzel, Uysal, & Günseli, 2024).
Building on this framework, we also examine how prior knowledge shapes event segmentation. Recent work from our lab shows that knowledge can both reduce and increase segmentation depending on whether ongoing experience aligns with learned structure: experience consistent with prior knowledge is segmented more coarsely, whereas violations of learned structure lead to finer segmentation (Bağlar & Günseli, 2026). Crucially, these effects are secondary to contextual transitions, supporting our view that contextual stability is the primary determinant of event segmentation.
Bağlar, B. & Günseli, E. (2026). Ignorance is Bliss: Exploring the Dual Role of Knowledge in Event Segmentation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 33(50). Link. Link to preprint
Güler, B., Adıgüzel, Z., Uysal, B., & Günseli, E. (2024) Discrete memories of a continuous world: A working memory perspective on event segmentation. Link.
Nolden, S., Turan G., Güler, B., & Günseli, E. (2024) Prediction error and event segmentation in episodic memory. Link
Güler, B., Serin, F., & Günseli, E. (2023). Prediction error is out of context: The dominance of contextual stability in segmenting episodic events. Link
Attention guided to memories
Some information is more important than others, not only in the external world but also in our mind.
We can attend to a particular memory representation more than the other. But what is the consequence of such differential attentional weighing of memories? Is the attended memory remembered with greater precision? Are unattended memories forgotten?
We found that attending to memory makes it less likely to be forgotten and also more precise. This benefit is partly due to the protection of the attended representation against interference. It takes about 400-600 ms to establish attention-based protection (van Moorselaar et al., 2015). The fate of unattended memories, on the other hand, depends on their potential future relevance. An unattended representation is more likely to be forgotten if there is a lower chance for it to become relevant in the future (Gunseli et al., 2015; Gunseli et al., 2018). Together, these results show that attention and storage in WM are distinct processes and that attention protects WM representations.
Gunsel, Fahrenfort, van Moorselaar, Daoultzis, Meeter, & Olivers (2019). EEG dynamics reveal a dissociation between selective attention and storage in working memory. Nature Scientific Reports. Link.
Gunseli, E., van Moorselaar, D., Meeter, M., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2015). The reliability of retro-cues determines the fate of non-cued visual working memory representations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1334-1341. PDF.
Serin, F., & Günseli, E. (2022). Internal attention is the only retroactive mechanism for controlling precision in working memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 1-12. PDF.
Tarder-Stoll, H.*, Jayakumar, M.*, Dimsdale-Zucker, H. R., Günseli, E., Aly, M. (2020). Dynamic internal states shape memory retrieval. Neuropsychologia. Link to preprint.
van Moorselaar, D., Gunseli, E., Theeuwes, J., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2015). The time course of protecting a visual memory representation from perceptual interference. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1053. PDF.
Attention guided by memories
Humans have very limited information processing capacity yet they are faced with a vast amount of information in almost every moment of their lives. Therefore, we need to select the most relevant information and inhibit information that is irrelevant to their current task goals. But how do we know what to select?
Attention is guided by memory representations or so-called attentional templates. Attentional templates can be stored either actively in working memory or passively in long-term memory. Do templates in working memory differ in the way they guide attention from templates in long-term memory? If so, does the memory status change depending on the type of anticipated attentional guidance? For example, do we form an active template for our friend whom we are looking for in a crowded mall instead of an empty beach?
Our research shows that the anticipated difficulty of search determines the effort of maintaining the search template (Gunseli et al., 2014a; Gunseli et al., 2014b). However, repeatedly searching for the same target results in the transfer of the search template from working memory to long-term memory independent of the anticipated search difficulty (Gunseli et al., 2014a). When there is a conflict between working memory and long-term memory goals working memory is the winner: We involuntarily attend to the distracters that match our working memory (Gunseli et al., 2015).
Günseli, E, Aly, M. (2020). Preparation for upcoming attentional states in the hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex. eLife. Link
Gunseli, E., Meeter, M., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2015). Task-Irrelevant Memories Rapidly Gain Attentional Control with Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. PDF.
Gunseli, E., Meeter, M., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2014). Is a search template an ordinary working memory? Comparing electrophysiological markers of working memory maintenance for visual search and recognition. Neuropsychologia,60, 29-38. PDF.
Gunseli, E., Olivers, C. N. L., & Meeter, M. (2014). Effects of search difficulty on the selection, maintenance, and learning of attentional templates. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 26, 2042- 2054. PDF.
Distraction during memory retrieval
Storing memories is not enough. We need to access these memories to bring them to mind. Distraction during accessing our memories, also called retrieval, can be detrimental to memories. However, sometimes the detrimental effects are not observed. Moreover, what aspects of memories suffer from distraction and how much control do humans have protecting memories during retrieval remain to be explored. We have multiple projects in the lab that aim to explore these exciting issues. For a review paper that we wrote on this topic, see the link below.
Ataseven, N., Ünver, N., & Günseli, E. (2023). How does divided attention hinder different stages of episodic memory retrieval?. Link.