Working Memory Capacity and Visual–Verbal Cognitive Load Modulate Auditory–Sensory Gating in the Brainstem: Toward a Unified View of Attention

Abstract

Abstract■ Two fundamental research questions have driven attention research in the past: One concerns whether selection of relevant information among competing, irrelevant, information takes place at an early or at a late processing stage; the other concerns whether the capacity of attention is limited by a central, domain-general pool of resources or by independent, modality-specific pools. In this article, we contribute to these debates by showing that the auditoryevoked brainstem response (an early stage of auditory processing) to task-irrelevant sound decreases as a function of central working memory load (manipulated with a visual-verbal version of the n-back task). Furthermore, individual differences in central/ domain-general working memory capacity modulated the magnitude of the auditory-evoked brainstem response, but only in the high working memory load condition. The results support a unified view of attention whereby the capacity of a late/central mechanism (working memory) modulates early precortical sensory processing. ■

Distraction control processes in free recall: Benefits and costs to performance.

“…Consonant with the idea that individual differences in WMC reflect the ability to control distraction (Engle, 2002), Sörqvist, Stenfelt and Rönnberg (2012) showed that a greater focus on a to-be-attended channel (a visual-verbal source in this case) resulted in greater inhibition of irrelevant auditory processing, especially in high-WMC individuals. This supports the idea that low-WMC individuals have poorer inhibitory capabilities, thus failing to inhibit the auditory material at early perceptual processing stages (Sörqvist, Stenfelt, & Rönnberg, 2012; see also Tsuchida, Katayama, & Murohashi, 2012).…”

Predicting Speech-in-Noise Recognition From Performance on the Trail Making Test

“…However, the nature of the precise cognitive processes measured by complex span tasks has been the subject of some debate with executive functions (Whitney et al, 2001), resistance to proactive interference (Kane and Engle, 2000), attention (Sörqvist et al, 2012), task switching (Liefooghe et al, 2008) and information processing speed (Salthouse, 1992) all having been suggested to influence performance in complex span tasks. However, if the relation between complex span test performance and speech recognition is due to one of these suggested subcomponents of working memory, it may be possible to use simpler tests to investigate this relationship.…”

Nile red fluorescence screening facilitating neutral lipid phenotype determination in budding yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe

“…In support of this view, high-WMC individuals are typically less distracted by unwanted sound (Sörqvist & Rönnberg, 2014), and WMC is related to both shield mechanisms: High-WMC individuals show a more substantial attenuation of background-environment processing when task difficulty is high ( Fig. 3; Sörqvist, Stenfelt, & Rönnberg, 2012), and they show a greater resistance to attention capture ( Fig. 4; Sörqvist, 2010), possibly by means of active inhibition of taskirrelevant processing (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001;Marsh, Beaman, Hughes, & Jones, 2012;Marsh, Sörqvist, Hodgetts, Beaman, & Jones, 2015).…”

“…To test this hypothesis, Sörqvist, Stenfelt, and Rönnberg (2012) manipulated task difficulty within the n-back task. Participants were asked to view a sequence of letters (e.g., l, m, c, m, v, d, k, v) and to press a button when the letter they currently saw was identical to the one n steps back in the sequence.…”