Working memory is corrupted by strategic changes in search templates

Abstract

When searching for a specific object, we often form an image of the target, which we use as a search template. This template is thought to be maintained in working memory, primarily because of evidence that the contents of working memory influences search behavior. However, it is unknown whether this interaction applies in both directions. Here, we show that changes in search templates influence working memory. Participants were asked to remember the orientation of a line that changed every trial, and on some trials (75%) search for that orientation, but on remaining trials recall the orientation. Critically, we manipulated the target template by introducing a predictable context-distractors in the visual search task were always counterclockwise (or clockwise) from the search target. The predictable context produced a large bias in search. Importantly, we also found a similar bias in orientation memory reports, demonstrating that working memory and target templates were not held as completely separate, isolated representations. However, the memory bias was considerably smaller than the search bias, suggesting that, although there is a common source, the two may not be driven by a single, shared process. to working memory representations (Soto, Hodsoll, Rotshtein, & Humphreys, 2008), at least when targets change on a per trial basis (Woodman, Luck, & Schall, 2007). Versions of this theory vary in the nature of the relationship between the two constructs. 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. Evidence for the overlap of templates and working memory representations comes largely from studies showing that the contents of working memory influence attention, commonly referred to as memory-driven attentional capture (Downing, 2000; Olivers, Meijer, & Theeuwes, 2006; Soto, Heinke, Humphreys, & Blanco, 2005). Here we examine this interaction in the other direction. Previous research has found that memory representations improve due to visual search (Rajsic, Ouslis, Wilson, & Pratt, 2017; Williams, Henderson, & Zacks, 2005). However, it is difficult to disentangle the memory improvement because of an item becoming the search template from the general memory improvement that comes from attending to an item for longer, either while present or within memory (i.e., the retro-cue effect; Griffin & Nobre, 2003). Instead, we will directly ask whether changes in the target template will influence memory reports. If target templates are equivalent to me...

The reactivation of task rules triggers the reactivation of task-relevant items

“…First, multiple EEG studies found higher levels of attentional prioritization of WM items based on the difficulty of anticipated task demands (i.e., for visual search vs. recognition; (de Vries et al, 2017;van Driel et al, 2017). Second, knowledge of the identity of upcoming distractors (i.e., orientation) in a visual search task was suggested to result in subtle modifications of task-relevant items in WM (i.e., item representations are distorted away from distractor orientation) (Kong et al, 2020). Lastly, increasing the number of stimulus-response mappings was found to result in recalling smaller numbers of items, suggesting that an increase in the load of procedural WM is detrimental for the capacity of declarative WM (Barrouillet et al, 2015), which is in line with WM models that propose processing and storage in WM to rely on a common pool of resources (Barrouillet et al, 2004(Barrouillet et al, , 2011.…”

How Working Memory and Reinforcement Learning Are Intertwined: A Cognitive, Neural, and Computational Perspective

“…For example, episodic memories can disrupt working memory representations (Hoskin et al, 2019). Recent trial information or goals (Destefano et al, 2020;Kong et al, 2020) and global prior information (Destefano et al, 2020;Honig et al, 2020) also affect behavior on WM tasks. Episodic memory of previous choices on stimulus affects current choice in a learning task (Bornstein & Norman, 2017).…”

Object-based selection in visual working memory

“…However, the exact nature in which attention and working memory interact is still unclear. Research has explored whether visual attention and VWM share limited resources (Cowan, 2001;Rensink, 2000; but see Fougnie & Marois, 2006), have common neural underpinnings (Awh et al, 1999;Awh & Jonides, 2001;Gazzaley & Nobre, 2012;Nobre et al, 2004), or rely on a common template (Kong et al, 2020;Olivers et al, 2011), mostly to ambiguous results. Work addressing whether selection in perception and VWM draw on similar representational properties (Kong & Fougnie, 2019) provides another avenue to investigate this question.…”