» Articles » PMID: 22912623

Weight and See: Loading Working Memory Improves Incidental Identification of Irrelevant Faces

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2012 Aug 23
PMID 22912623
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Are task-irrelevant stimuli processed to a level enabling individual identification? This question is central both for perceptual processing models and for applied settings (e.g., eye-witness testimony). Lavie's load theory proposes that working memory actively maintains attentional prioritization of relevant over irrelevant information. Loading working memory thus impairs attentional prioritization, leading to increased processing of task-irrelevant stimuli. Previous research has shown that increased working memory load leads to greater interference effects from response-competing distractors. Here we test the novel prediction that increased processing of irrelevant stimuli under high working memory load should lead to a greater likelihood of incidental identification of entirely irrelevant stimuli. To test this, we asked participants to perform a word-categorization task while ignoring task-irrelevant images. The categorization task was performed during the retention interval of a working memory task with either low or high load (defined by memory set size). Following the final experimental trial, a surprise question assessed incidental identification of the irrelevant image. Loading working memory was found to improve identification of task-irrelevant faces, but not of building stimuli (shown in a separate experiment to be less distracting). These findings suggest that working memory plays a critical role in determining whether distracting stimuli will be subsequently identified.

Citing Articles

Your face scares me: Effects of Perceptual load and Social Anxiety on processing of threatening and neutral faces.

Theodorou M, Konstantinou N, Panayiotou G PLoS One. 2021; 16(3):e0248733.

PMID: 33760893 PMC: 7990234. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248733.


Twenty years of load theory-Where are we now, and where should we go next?.

Murphy G, Groeger J, Greene C Psychon Bull Rev. 2016; 23(5):1316-1340.

PMID: 26728138 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0982-5.


Working memory load and distraction: dissociable effects of visual maintenance and cognitive control.

Konstantinou N, Beal E, King J, Lavie N Atten Percept Psychophys. 2014; 76(7):1985-97.

PMID: 25085738 PMC: 4212201. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0742-z.


An asymmetric inhibition model of hemispheric differences in emotional processing.

Grimshaw G, Carmel D Front Psychol. 2014; 5:489.

PMID: 24904502 PMC: 4033216. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00489.


I can see clearly now: the effects of age and perceptual load on inattentional blindness.

Remington A, Cartwright-Finch U, Lavie N Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 8:229.

PMID: 24795596 PMC: 4005968. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00229.


References
1.
Jenkins R, Burton A, Ellis A . Long-term effects of covert face recognition. Cognition. 2002; 86(2):B43-52. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00172-5. View

2.
Lavie N . Distracted and confused?: selective attention under load. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005; 9(2):75-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004. View

3.
Macdonald J, Lavie N . Visual perceptual load induces inattentional deafness. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011; 73(6):1780-9. PMC: 3152714. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-011-0144-4. View

4.
Carmel D, Thorne J, Rees G, Lavie N . Perceptual load alters visual excitability. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011; 37(5):1350-60. DOI: 10.1037/a0024320. View

5.
Fougnie D, Marois R . Executive working memory load induces inattentional blindness. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007; 14(1):142-7. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194041. View