An inhibition of return (IOR) effect resulting from directing attention within working memory

Attentional refreshing of information in working memory: Increased immediate accessibility of just-refreshed representations

“…More broadly, our present demonstration of heightened accessibility of the information represented in the focus of attention in WM is consistent with the view that common attentional mechanisms exist in perception and WM (e.g., Johnson et al, 2013;Kiyonaga & Egner, 2013), with an attentional facilitation effect in both domains. Attentional facilitation in the domain of perception refers to the facilitative effect observed for stimuli presented in the current focus of external attention, i.e., the observation of faster behavioral responses to external stimuli presented at cued locations (e.g., Johnston, McCann, & Remington, 1995;Posner, 1980).…”

“…Of high relevance to the idea of common attentional mechanisms for perception and WM is the Johnson et al (2013) study which, in sharp contrast to the current study, reported evidence for decreased immediate access to the just-refreshed item in WM. There are several methodological differences between the two studies, but one main difference concerns the time scale.…”

“…When it comes to the specific nature of this special status, we observe a clearly positive effect on the accessibility of the item in the focus of attention, whereas Johnson et al (2013) observed a negative effect on the Refreshing in WM 29 accessibility of the item in the focus of attention. This is, however, not the first instance of contrasting findings concerning the nature of the special status of the information in the focus of attention.…”

“…It is possible that in WM, like in perception, but on a slower time scale, attentional facilitation occurs for the item in the focus of attention, followed by later inhibition for that item. Johnson et al (2013) suggested this possibility but attentional facilitation in WM had not been demonstrated yet.…”

“…It is currently unclear what exactly participants do when following instructions asking them to "think of" a particular item (see Johnson et al, 2013;Souza et al, 2015, for similar instructions). The observation of a just-refreshed benefit under articulatory suppression shows that participants can still think about an item even though subvocal articulation is prevented, but more research is needed to examine the nature of the refreshing process and the nature of the representations involved, both when refreshing occurs spontaneously and when it occurs under instructions.…”