Two visual working memory representations simultaneously control attention

Chen, Yanan; Du, Feng

doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05865-1

Cited by 23 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, they found that when two distractors in the gap-location search task respectively matched the two VWM representations (i.e., “Mem-2 Match-2” condition), the guidance was enhanced relative to the “Mem-2 Match-1” condition. These results are not in line with the single-item-template hypothesis and, in contrast, support the conclusion that multiple representations in VWM can simultaneously exert an influence on visual attention (see also Chen & Feng 25 ), which is referred to as the multiple-item-template hypothesis 24 .…”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 77%

“… 18 suggested that only the attentional template in VWM could guide attention, while the other accessory VWM representations would be downgraded to a passive status by the privileged attentional template, and hence could not bias attention. However, Hollingworth and Beck 24 and two recent studies by Chen and Feng 25 and Bahle, Beck and Hollingworth 42 using different types of experimental manipulations and dependent measures have shown that multiple representations in VWM could guide visual attention simultaneously, thus supporting the multiple-item-template hypothesis. Consistent with these findings, the current results also cast evidence for a robust accessory VWM-based attentional guidance on FFPs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attentional Guidance from Multiple Working Memory Representations: Evidence from Eye Movements

Bao

Liu

Doro

et al. 2018

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have shown that the representation of an item in visual working memory (VWM) can bias the deployment of attention to stimuli in the visual scene possessing the same features. When multiple item representations are simultaneously held in VWM, whether these representations, especially those held in a non-prioritized or accessory status, are able to bias attention, is still controversial. In the present study we adopted an eye tracking technique to shed light on this issue. In particular, we implemented a manipulation aimed at prioritizing one of the VWM representation to an active status, and tested whether attention could be guided by both the prioritized and the accessory representations when they reappeared as distractors in a visual search task. Notably, in Experiment 1, an analysis of first fixation proportion (FFP) revealed that both the prioritized and the accessory representations were able to capture attention suggesting a significant attentional guidance effect. However, such effect was not present in manual response times (RT). Most critically, in Experiment 2, we used a more robust experimental design controlling for different factors that might have played a role in shaping these findings. The results showed evidence for attentional guidance from the accessory representation in both manual RTs and FFPs. Interestingly, FFPs showed a stronger attentional bias for the prioritized representation than for the accessory representation across experiments. The overall findings suggest that multiple VWM representations, even the accessory representation, can simultaneously interact with visual attention.

show abstract

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 77%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Attentional Guidance from Multiple Working Memory Representations: Evidence from Eye Movements

Bao

Liu

Doro

et al. 2018

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, the search array was presented for 150 ms in Experiment 1, making the LTM-based reactive rejection mechanism unlikely to be fulfilled as this engage-disengage process requires at least 150-300 ms to complete in the presence of the search display (Geng, 2014;Moher & Egeth, 2012;Theeuwes, 2010). Third, recent studies have shown that multiple WM representations could control attention simultaneously (Chen & Du, 2017;Hollingworth & Beck, 2016). Therefore, it was functionally possible for the participants to maintain two colors in WM (i.e., the cueing color and the constant color) when rapid switching was not required in Experiment 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…An additional interpretation centers on the recent challenge to the idea that only one item in memory can guide attention at a time. A number of recent papers provide evidence that two representations may simultaneously bias attention during visual search (Bahle, Beck, & Hollingworth, in press;Beck & Hollingworth, 2017;Chen & Du, 2017). By this account, exacerbated attentional capture in both the highpriority match and the low-priority match distractor conditions are a consequence of both items acting as a template guiding search.…”

Section: The Distinction Between Prioritizing For Recall and For Tempmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinct prioritization of visual working memory representations for search and for recall

Dube

Al-Aidroos

2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the inherent limitations of visual working memory (VWM), it effectively supports numerous everyday behaviors − capabilities that are due, in part, to its flexibility. An observer can flexibly prioritize VWM representations to support at least two behavioral outcomes: An item can be prioritized to enhance its representational quality, thereby enhancing recall precision, and an item can be granted Btemplate status,^allowing it to bias attention during visual search, speeding search for matching targets.Here we examined the relationship between these two forms of prioritization. Research has shown that a byproduct of granting an item template status is that its precision is enhanced; however, it is unclear if the inverse is also true: Does prioritizing an item for enhanced representational quality cause that item to bias attention? In the present study, participants remembered the colors of two squares for a subsequent recall task, and one was cued, indicating it was 80% likely to be the target of the memory test. To assess template status, a subset of trials ended in a visual search task in which a colored singleton distractor matched the color of the cued item in memory, the non-cued item, or an unrelated color. We found that, although the cue was effective at enhancing recall precision of the cued item, it had no systematic effect on which of the two memory items was granted template status. Thus, we conclude that the two forms of prioritization in VWM − prioritization for recall and for search − are distinct.

show abstract

Two visual working memory representations simultaneously control attention

Cited by 23 publications

References 32 publications

Attentional Guidance from Multiple Working Memory Representations: Evidence from Eye Movements

Attentional Guidance from Multiple Working Memory Representations: Evidence from Eye Movements

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

Distinct prioritization of visual working memory representations for search and for recall

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About