Concurrent working memory load may increase or reduce cognitive interference depending on the attentional set.

Abstract

Perceptual grouping leads to interference when target and distractors are integrated within the same percept. Cognitive control allows breaking this automatic tendency by focusing selectively on target information. Thus, interference can be modulated either by goal-directed mechanisms or by physical features of stimuli that help to segregate the target from distractors. In three experiments, participants had to respond to the left-right direction of a central arrow, flanked by two arrows on each side. Sometimes, instructions requested to also stay vigilant for detecting an infrequent vertical/horizontal displacement of the target, thus loading working memory. Although it has been usually shown that concurrent working memory load hinders target selection, the present research provides evidence that interference may either increase or decrease depending on whether dual tasking draws attention to the grouping (horizontal displacement) or to an orthogonal dimension (vertical displacement), revealing counterintuitive benefits of working memory load. Public Significance StatementCognitive control mechanisms help us to focus our attention only on the relevant stimuli of the environment while ignoring irrelevant information, to achieve the goals demanded by the task performed at a specific moment. Although cognitive control is usually impaired by the simultaneous performance of a secondary task, some studies have found the opposite result or have failed to find any effect of secondary task at all. In the present study, we observed that if the secondary task promotes the grouping of relevant and irrelevant stimuli, then cognitive control is indeed hindered. However, if the secondary task incidentally helps to segregate the relevant stimuli from the irrelevant ones, then cognitive control improves. Therefore, we demonstrate that the difficulty posed by having to perform two tasks simultaneously can be considerably reduced, depending in particular on the set of instructions kept in mind.

Attentional networks, vigilance, and distraction as a function of ADHD symptoms

“…By contrast, the ANTI-Vea incorporates a second goal into the mindset, which is simultaneous to the first one-namely, to respond to the vertical displacement of the target. This type of increase in the working memory load has been found to reduce the flanker interference, leading to a lower congruency effect (Luna, Telga, et al, 2020). Indeed, the congruency effect we obtained for RT and percentage errors were less than half of the usually reported in the ANT in nonclinical adults (MacLeod et al, 2010).…”

The ANTI-Vea task: analyzing the executive and arousal vigilance decrements while measuring the three attentional networks

“…3). Indeed, the ~40 ms effect of executive control observed with the ANTI-Vea (for a specific analysis of this issue, see Luna, Telga, Vadillo, & Lupiáñez, 2020) is similar to those of phasic alertness and orienting, in contrast with other versions of the task which produce a much larger effect of executive control (between ~60 and ~100 ms; Callejas et al, 2004;Fan, McCandliss, Sommer, Raz, & Posner, 2002;Roca, Castro, López-Ramón, & Lupiáñez, 2011).…”

Measuring attention and vigilance in the laboratory vs. online: The split-half reliability of the ANTI-Vea

“…Note that the size of the interference observed with the ANTI-Vea (i.e., 44 ms in the RT for both task versions, and 0.51% and 0.61% in the errors for the standard and the online versions, respectively) seems to be smaller than that usually reported with the ANT (Fan et al, 2002), ANTI (Callejas et al, 2004), and ANTI-V (Roca et al, 2011) tasks. To account for this reduced interference, we recently conducted a separate study to specifically address this issue (Luna, Telga, Vadillo, & Lupiáñez, 2020d). In short, and after analyzing data collected from five different experiments, we concluded that, in comparison with the interference effect observed when only performing a flanker task (i.e., ~55 ms and ~3.5% of errors), the concurrent working memory load of performing the flanker and the EV task at the same time (1) reduces interference (i.e., ~33 ms and ~-0.5% of errors) when the EV task helps to perceptually segregate the target from distractors (i.e., detecting an infrequent vertical displacement of the target, as in the ANTI-Vea), but (2) increases interference (i.e., ~87 ms and ~10.0% errors) when the EV task boosts the perceptual grouping of the target and distractors (i.e., by detecting an infrequent horizontal displacement of the target, as in the previous ANTI-V; Roca et al, 2011) (Luna, Telga, et al, 2020d).…”

“…To account for this reduced interference, we recently conducted a separate study to specifically address this issue (Luna, Telga, Vadillo, & Lupiáñez, 2020d). In short, and after analyzing data collected from five different experiments, we concluded that, in comparison with the interference effect observed when only performing a flanker task (i.e., ~55 ms and ~3.5% of errors), the concurrent working memory load of performing the flanker and the EV task at the same time (1) reduces interference (i.e., ~33 ms and ~-0.5% of errors) when the EV task helps to perceptually segregate the target from distractors (i.e., detecting an infrequent vertical displacement of the target, as in the ANTI-Vea), but (2) increases interference (i.e., ~87 ms and ~10.0% errors) when the EV task boosts the perceptual grouping of the target and distractors (i.e., by detecting an infrequent horizontal displacement of the target, as in the previous ANTI-V; Roca et al, 2011) (Luna, Telga, et al, 2020d). In any case, a nice property of the scores of the classic attentional functions with the ANTI-Vea task is that the three are of a similar size (~45 ms), in contrast to previous versions of the task, which provide a much larger measure for executive control.…”