» Articles » PMID: 23002024

Visual Short-term Memory Always Requires General Attention

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2012 Sep 25
PMID 23002024
Citations 36
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The role of attention in visual memory remains controversial; while some evidence has suggested that memory for binding between features demands no more attention than does memory for the same features, other evidence has indicated cognitive costs or mnemonic benefits for explicitly attending to bindings. We attempted to reconcile these findings by examining how memory for binding, for features, and for features during binding is affected by a concurrent attention-demanding task. We demonstrated that performing a concurrent task impairs memory for as few as two visual objects, regardless of whether each object includes one or more features. We argue that this pattern of results reflects an essential role for domain-general attention in visual memory, regardless of the simplicity of the to-be-remembered stimuli. We then discuss the implications of these findings for theories of visual working memory.

Citing Articles

Constraints of attention, stimulus modality, and feature similarity in working memory.

Li Y, Cowan N Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022; 84(8):2519-2539.

PMID: 36123501 PMC: 10039417. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-022-02549-5.


The role of domain-general attention and domain-specific processing in working memory in algebraic performance: An experimental approach.

Unal Z, Forsberg A, Geary D, Cowan N J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2022; 48(3):348-374.

PMID: 35389726 PMC: 10053735. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0001117.


The Girl Was Watered by the Flower: Effects of Working Memory Loads on Syntactic Production in Young Children.

Adams E, Cowan N J Cogn Dev. 2021; 22(1):125-148.

PMID: 34584497 PMC: 8475788. DOI: 10.1080/15248372.2020.1844710.


Children's long-term retention is directly constrained by their working memory capacity limitations.

Forsberg A, Guitard D, Adams E, Pattanakul D, Cowan N Dev Sci. 2021; 25(2):e13164.

PMID: 34328244 PMC: 8908437. DOI: 10.1111/desc.13164.


Working Memory Load Effects on the Tilt Aftereffect.

Mei G, Cen M, Luo X, Qiu S, Pan Y Front Psychol. 2021; 12:618712.

PMID: 34211415 PMC: 8239138. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.618712.


References
1.
Hudjetz A, Oberauer K . The effects of processing time and processing rate on forgetting in working memory: testing four models of the complex span paradigm. Mem Cognit. 2007; 35(7):1675-84. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193501. View

2.
Delvenne J, Cleeremans A, Laloyaux C . Feature bindings are maintained in visual short-term memory without sustained focused attention. Exp Psychol. 2010; 57(2):108-16. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000014. View

3.
Camos V, Mora G, Oberauer K . Adaptive choice between articulatory rehearsal and attentional refreshing in verbal working memory. Mem Cognit. 2011; 39(2):231-44. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-010-0011-x. View

4.
Morey C . Integrated cross-domain object storage in working memory: evidence from a verbal-spatial memory task. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009; 62(11):2235-51. DOI: 10.1080/17470210902763382. View

5.
Rouder J, Morey R, Morey C, Cowan N . How to measure working memory capacity in the change detection paradigm. Psychon Bull Rev. 2011; 18(2):324-30. PMC: 3070885. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-011-0055-3. View