2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.02.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The precision of attentional selection is far worse than the precision of the underlying memory representation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

6
50
3

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 85 publications
6
50
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The discussion of whether multiple items can guide attention is often focused on the number of items that can achieve a privileged template status with little focus on the representational quality of the memoranda (but see Kerzel, 2019, Kerzel & Witzel, 2019, and Zhou, Lorist, & Mathôt, 2020. Here, in contrast, we focused on carefully assessing the representational fidelity of working memory items and found a straightforward relationship between memory strength and attentional guidance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…The discussion of whether multiple items can guide attention is often focused on the number of items that can achieve a privileged template status with little focus on the representational quality of the memoranda (but see Kerzel, 2019, Kerzel & Witzel, 2019, and Zhou, Lorist, & Mathôt, 2020. Here, in contrast, we focused on carefully assessing the representational fidelity of working memory items and found a straightforward relationship between memory strength and attentional guidance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Admittedly, the attention and memory biases in our study were measured using two different techniques, which may add some unforeseen noise to the comparison. However, this study, in conjunction with existing evidence (Carlisle & Woodman, 2013;Kerzel, 2019), provides a challenge to the theory that a single, shared mechanism is responsible for both search templates and memory representations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…According to some theories, being stored in working memory may be necessary but not sufficient for a representation to be a template ( Dube & Al-Aidroos, 2019 ; Hollingworth & Hwang, 2013 ), that is, templates require some additional top–down process, such as attention ( Gunseli, Meeter, & Olivers, 2014 ; van Driel, Gunseli, Meeter, & Olivers, 2017 ). There is evidence that attentional templates have independent properties from working memory representations, suggesting that the two can be dissociated ( Carlisle & Woodman, 2011 , 2013 ; Kerzel, 2019 ). However, most theories tend to favor a strong link between the two constructs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, as suggested before (Hughes et al, 2014; Draheim et al, 2016; Vandierendonck, 2017), we combined speed and accuracy into a unified measure, inverse efficiency score (IES), to determine the relation between the perception of clarity and the conception of valence (RT and AR results in each experiment are also presented in Appendix Table B). IES is the oldest and the most frequently used measure integrating RT and AR (Vandierendonck, 2017) and has been applied by a line of empirical work (Kunar et al, 2007; Kerzel, 2019; Kerzel and Witzel, 2019; Machlin et al, 2019; Ondish et al, 2019). According to Townsend and Ashby (1978), the IES is calculated by dividing the average correct reaction time with the proportion of correct answers, that is, IES = RT/AR.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%