The allocation of working memory resources determines the efficiency of attentional templates in single- and dual-target search.

Abstract

Attentional templates are representations of target features in working memory (WM). Although two attentional templates can guide visual search in dual-target search, search efficiency is reduced compared with one attentional template in single-target search. Here, we investigated whether the allocation of WM resources contributes to these differences. Participants always memorized two colors, but the use of the corresponding WM representations varied. In the blocked conditions, the two colors were either maintained as attentional templates for dual-target search or as simple WM representations for recall only. In the mixed condition, one color was maintained as an attentional template for single-target search and the other as a simple WM representation for recall only. Reaction times (RTs) were delayed and recall precision reduced with two attentional templates in the blocked condition compared with one attentional template in the mixed condition, indicating that search efficiency and WM resources decreased in dual-compared with single-target search. Moreover, the attentional template was always recalled more precisely than the simple WM representation in the mixed condition, despite lowered visual search frequency (Experiment 2) and retro-cueing (Experiment 3). Consistent with the existence of an "active" WM state, resources were strongly biased toward the attentional template in single-target search. In dual-target search, however, resources were balanced between two attentional templates and flexibly adjusted with retro-cues, as with two simple WM representations. Therefore, the allocation of WM resources goes beyond the traditional dichotomy between "active" and "accessory" WM states and explains how attentional templates guide visual search with variable efficiency.

Swift attenuation of irrelevant features through feature consistency: Evidence from a capture-probe version of the contingent-capture protocol

“…In addition, as top-down control is generally subject to limited capacity or resources (cf. Huynh Cong & Kerzel, 2022 ), successful suppression of a salient colour distractor during the colour search could be particularly difficult if additional perceptual demands are imposed by the probe digits in the cueing display (cf. Lavie, 2005 ).…”

Evidence of resource sharing in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm.

“…In general, the finding that resource allocation effects can explain performance in the present PRP paradigm fits well with growing evidence indicating that an interplay of cognitive control and resource sharing also influences performance in other multitasking environments (Boag, Strickland, Heathcote, et al, 2019; Boag, Strickland, Loft, et al, 2019; Miller & Tang, 2021; Mittelstädt et al, 2022; Palada et al, 2019). Clearly, the question of what constitutes cognitive resources could be further elucidated, but for now it seems quite reasonable to assume that working memory can be seen as a limited resource (Huynh Cong & Kerzel, 2021, 2022; Janczyk, 2017; Musslick & Cohen, 2021; Redick et al, 2016). Specifically, both maintaining preparation for task processing and task processing itself require limited working memory resources (see also Belletier et al, 2021; Huynh Cong & Kerzel, 2021; Cowan, 2008).…”

Sensory Delay Activity: More than an Electrophysiological Index of Working Memory Load

“…Second, while it has previously been assumed that the allocation of WM resources is constrained by their discrete nature (Fukuda et al, 2010;Luria et al, 2016), behavioral studies suggest that WM resources can also be allocated more flexibly and continuously (Dube et al, 2017;Emrich et al, 2017;Cong & Kerzel, 2022;Yoo et al, 2018). To test the effect of top-down resource allocation on the CDA, Salahub, Lockhart, Dube, et al (2019) used a systematically lateralized memory array with a manipulation of item priority (see Figure 3a).…”