Can you have multiple attentional templates? Large-scale replications of Van Moorselaar, Theeuwes and Olivers (2014) and Hollingworth and Beck (2016)

Abstract

Stimuli that resemble the content of visual working memory (VWM) capture attention. However, theories disagree on how many VWM items can bias attention simultaneously. The multiple-state account posits a distinction between template and accessory VWM items, such that only a single template item biases attention. In contrast, homogenous-state accounts posit that all VWM items bias attention. Recently, Van Moorselaar et al. (2014) and Hollingworth and Beck (2016) tested these accounts, but obtained seemingly contradictory results. Van Moorselaar et al. (2014) found that a distractor in a visual-search task captured attention more when it matched the content of VWM (memory-driven capture). Crucially, memory-driven capture disappeared when more than one item was held in VWM, in line with the multiple-state account. In contrast, Hollingworth and Beck (2016) found memory-driven capture even when multiple items were kept in VWM, in line with a homogenous-state account. Considering these mixed results, we replicated both studies with a larger sample, and found that all key results are reliable. It is unclear to what extent these divergent results are due to paradigm differences between the studies. We conclude that is crucial to our understanding of VWM to determine the boundary conditions under which memory-driven capture occurs.

Memory-based attentional biases survive spatial suppression driven by selection history

“…To corroborate the findings in Experiment 1, we present data from a larger replication project investigating the reliability of various memory-driven attentional capture phenomena (Fratescu, van Moorselaar, & Mathot, 2018), and which included a similar probability manipulation. Other manipulations were included (most notably memory load) but will be reported on elsewhere.…”

“…2. Note that this trimming procedure is slightly different from the procedure reported in Fratescu et al (2018). We chose to use the same procedure as reported in our previous work (Olivers et al, 2006b;van Moorselaar et al, 2014).…”

The object as the unit of interaction between visual working memory and visual attention

“…Specifically, it may be easier for participants to strategically chunk multiple items in some experimental contexts, but not in others. For example, in Hollingworth & Beck (2016), as well as some other studies showing attentional guidance by multiple items (Frătescu et al, 2019;Zhou et al, 2020), two different colors in VWM were often presented simultaneously during the subsequent search display (i.e., match-2 trials in their studies). Such a design might promote participants to chunk two memorized colors into an integrated higher-level representation, thereby leading to attentional guidance.…”

EEG Cross-Frequency Phase Synchronization as an Index of Memory Matching in Visual Search

“…Interestingly, though, Beck and colleagues (2012) propose that observers can concurrently keep two templates active in simultaneous search because when they explicitly asked participants to simultaneously search for two templates, their gaze frequently switched between them without switch costs. Similarly, Hollingworth and Beck (2016) found that even when multiple templates were kept in mind, a distractor in a visual-search task captured attention more when it matched the template(s), and proposed that multiple templates can guide attention simultaneously; but see also van Moorselaar et al (2014) or Frătescu et al (2019) where in contrast, such memory-driven capture was reported only for single templates, demonstrating that this does not hold in all situations. However, evidence showing clear switch costs for selection has been reported when only one out of two potential targets was available, suggesting that observers cannot actively search for multiple objects if they are not able to freely choose the target category (Ort et al, 2017, 2018).…”