How retaining objects containing multiple features in visual working memory regulates the priority for access to visual awareness

Ding, Yun; Naber, Marnix; Paffen, Chris; Gayet, Surya; Stigchel, Stefan Van der

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2020.103057

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Neuroimaging and pupillometric studies have supported this notion by revealing enhanced responses to visual stimuli matching the content of VWM, regardless of their location (Gayet et al, 2017;Olmos-Solis et al, 2018;Wilschut & Mathôt, 2022) (also see Karabay et al, 2024). Moreover, what is stored in VWM guides attention (Olivers et al, 2006;Soto et al, 2008), accelerates access to awareness (Ding, Naber, Paffen, Gayet, et al, 2021;Ding, Naber, Paffen, Sahakian, et al, 2021;Gayet et al, 2013), and affects eye-movements (Hollingworth et al, 2013;Silvis & Van der Stigchel, 2014). Gayet et al (2017) suggested that VWM pre-activates neuronal populations responsible for visual perception, leading to enhanced processing of matching visual input.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Sensory Input Matching Visual Working Memory Guides Internal Prioritization

Koevoet,

Strauch,

Naber

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptive behavior necessitates the prioritization of the most relevant information in the environment (external) and in memory (internal). Internal prioritization is known to guide the selection of external sensory input, but the reverse may also be possible: Does the environment also guide the prioritization of memorized material? Here we addressed whether reappearing sensory input matching visual working memory (VWM) facilitates the prioritization of other non-reappearing memorized items. Participants (totaln= 72) memorized three orientations. Crucially some, but not all, items maintained in VWM were made available again in the environment. These reappearing items were task-irrelevant, as they never had to be reproduced later. Experiment 1 showed that the reappearance of all but one memory item benefited accuracy and speed to the same extent as a spatial retro cue. This shows that memory-matching, yet task-irrelevant sensory input facilitates VWM prioritization. What aspects of the reappearing sensory input drive this effect? Experiment 2 demonstrated that prioritization was facilitated most if reappearing items matched VWM content in terms of both location and orientation. Sensory input fully matching VWM is likely processed more efficiently, possibly leading to stronger prioritization of other memory content. We showed the robustness of our findings in Experiment 3. We propose that the link between sensory processing and VWM is bidirectional: internal representations guide the processing of sensory input, which in turn facilitates the prioritization of other VWM content to subserve adaptive behavior.

show abstract