Working memory stores and processes information received as a stream of continuously incoming stimuli. This requires accurate sequencing and it remains puzzling how this can be reliably achieved by the neuronal system as our perceptual inputs show a high degree of temporal variability. One hypothesis is that accurate timing is achieved by purely transient neuronal dynamics; by contrast a second hypothesis states that the underlying network dynamics are dominated by attractor states. In this study, we resolve this contradiction by theoretically investigating the performance of the system using stimuli with differently accurate timing. Interestingly, only the combination of attractor and transient dynamics enables the network to perform with a low error rate. Further analysis reveals that the transient dynamics of the system are used to process information, while the attractor states store it. The interaction between both types of dynamics yields experimentally testable predictions and we show that this way the system can reliably interact with a timing-unreliable Hebbian-network representing long-term memory. Thus, this study provides a potential solution to the long-standing problem of the basic neuronal dynamics underlying working memory.Humans and animals continuously receive information conveyed by stimuli from the environment. To survive, the brain has to store and process this stream of information which is mainly attributed to the processes of working memory (WM 1, 2 ). These two distinct abilities of WM, to store and to process information, yield a debate about the underlying neuronal network dynamics 3-5 : the network dynamics might either follow (i) attractor or (ii) transient dynamics.Attractor dynamics denotes neuronal network dynamics which is dominated by groups of neurons being persistently active. In general, such a persistent activation is related to an attractor state of the dynamics, with each attractor associated to a specific information content 3, 6-8 . Several experimental and theoretical studies hypothesize that the dynamics underlying WM are dominated by such persistent dynamics 5,[8][9][10] . In contrast to attractor dynamics, neuronal networks with transient dynamics are dominated by an attractor-less continuous flow of neuronal activity across a possibly large neuronal population [11][12][13][14] . This type of dynamics implies a high diversity and complexity which is linked by theoretical studies with a large computational capacity required to process information [15][16][17] . These theoretical studies as well as several pieces of experimental evidence 18-20 yield the hypothesis that the dynamics underlying WM are dominated by transient dynamics 20,21 . Thus, although the two hypotheses -attractor or transient dynamics -seem to contradict each other, experimental and theoretical evidence supports both yielding a debate about the neuronal network dynamics underlying WM 5 .To resolve this contradiction, in this study, we consider the fact that the timing of stimuli received by the WM i...