Incidental biasing of attention from visual long-term memory.

Fan, Judith E.; Turk‐Browne, Nicholas B.

doi:10.1037/xlm0000209

Cited by 29 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results have demonstrated that simply holding an item in WM was not sufficient for control (Hutchinson & Turk-Browne, 2012;Woodman & Chun, 2006). This proposal was supported by experimental investigations in which the content of LTM has been shown to optimize perceptual sensitivity (Stokes, Atherton, Patai, & Nobre, 2012) and induce attentional capture (Fan & Turk-Browne, 2016;Olivers, 2011). Nevertheless, the interaction between the predictive information in LTM and distractor suppression remained less explored.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Memory guidance in distractor suppression is governed by the availability of cognitive control

Wen

Hou

2018

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information stored in the memory systems can affect visual search. Previous studies have shown that holding the to-be-ignored features of distractors in working memory (WM) could accelerate target selection. However, such facilitation effect was only observed when the cued to-be-ignored features remained unchanged within an experimental block (i.e., the fixed cue condition). No search benefit was obtained if the to-be-ignored features varied from trial to trial (i.e., the varied cue condition). In the present study, we conducted three behavioral experiments to investigate whether the WM and long-term memory (LTM) representations of the to-be-ignored features could facilitate visual search in the fixed cue (Experiment 1) and varied cue (Experiments 2 and 3) conditions. Given the importance of the processing time of cognitive control in distractor suppression, we divided visual search trials into five quintiles based on their reaction times (RTs) and examined the temporal characteristics of the suppression effect. Results showed that both the WM and LTM representations of the to-be-ignored features could facilitate distractor suppression in the fixed cue condition, and the facilitation effects were evident across the quintiles in the RT distribution. However, in the varied cue condition, the RT benefits of the WM-matched distractors occurred only in the trials with the longest RTs, whereas no advantage of the LTM-matched distractors was observed. These results suggest that the effective WM-guided distractor suppression depends on the availability of cognitive control and the LTM-guided suppression occurs only if sufficient WM resource is accessible by LTM reactivation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Memory guidance in distractor suppression is governed by the availability of cognitive control

Wen

Hou

2018

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, distractors with associative links to the target disrupt the visual search by capturing attention (Moores et al., 2003). Furthermore, newly learned associations continue to affect performance on subsequent tasks, even when completely irrelevant (Fan and Turk-Browne, 2016).…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Premembering Experience: A Hierarchy of Time-Scales for Proactive Attention

Nobre

Stokes

2019

Neuron

122

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Memories are about the past, but they serve the future. Memory research often emphasizes the former aspect: focusing on the functions that reconstitute (re-member) experience and elucidating the various types of memories and their interrelations, timescales, and neural bases. Here we highlight the prospective nature of memory in guiding selective attention, focusing on functions that use previous experience to anticipate the relevant events about to unfold-to ''premember'' experience. Memories of various types and timescales play a fundamental role in guiding perception and performance adaptively, proactively, and dynamically. Consonant with this perspective, memories are often recorded according to expected future demands. Using working memory as an example, we consider how mnemonic content is selected and represented for future use. This perspective moves away from the traditional representational account of memory toward a functional account in which forward-looking memory traces are informationally and computationally tuned for interacting with incoming sensory signals to guide adaptive behavior.

show abstract

“…People are slower to respond on a visual search task when an item matching an item held in working memory is presented as a distractor (attentional capture). A broad range of mental states and processes can bias our attention, including visual working memory, verbal working memory, long‐term memory, associative knowledge, implicit memory, and reward . Studies have found converging evidence for attentional capture when the working memory load is held to a single item (although see Refs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral decoding of working memory items inside and outside the focus of attention

Mallett

Lewis-Peacock

2018

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How we attend to our thoughts affects how we attend to our environment. Holding information in working memory can automatically bias visual attention toward matching information. By observing attentional biases on reaction times to visual search during a memory delay, it is possible to reconstruct the source of that bias using machine learning techniques and thereby behaviorally decode the content of working memory. Can this be done when more than one item is held in working memory? There is some evidence that multiple items can simultaneously bias attention, but the effects have been inconsistent. One explanation may be that items are stored in different states depending on the current task demands. Recent models propose functionally distinct states of representation for items inside versus outside the focus of attention. Here, we use behavioral decoding to evaluate whether multiple memory items-including temporarily irrelevant items outside the focus of attention-exert biases on visual attention. Only the single item in the focus of attention was decodable. The other item showed a brief attentional bias that dissipated until it returned to the focus of attention. These results support the idea of dynamic, flexible states of working memory across time and priority.

show abstract

Incidental biasing of attention from visual long-term memory.

Cited by 29 publications

References 35 publications

Memory guidance in distractor suppression is governed by the availability of cognitive control

Memory guidance in distractor suppression is governed by the availability of cognitive control

Premembering Experience: A Hierarchy of Time-Scales for Proactive Attention

Behavioral decoding of working memory items inside and outside the focus of attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About