Selection in Spatial Working Memory is Independent of Perceptual Selective Attention, but They Interact in a Shared Spatial Priority Map

Overview

Journal Atten Percept Psychophys

Publisher Springer

Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology

Date 2015 Sep 6

PMID 26341873

Citations 6

Authors

Craig Hedge

Klaus Oberauer

Ute Leonards

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

We examined the relationship between the attentional selection of perceptual information and of information in working memory (WM) through four experiments, using a spatial WM-updating task. Participants remembered the locations of two objects in a matrix and worked through a sequence of updating operations, each mentally shifting one dot to a new location according to an arrow cue. Repeatedly updating the same object in two successive steps is typically faster than switching to the other object; this object switch cost reflects the shifting of attention in WM. In Experiment 1, the arrows were presented in random peripheral locations, drawing perceptual attention away from the selected object in WM. This manipulation did not eliminate the object switch cost, indicating that the mechanisms of perceptual selection do not underlie selection in WM. Experiments 2a and 2b corroborated the independence of selection observed in Experiment 1, but showed a benefit to reaction times when the placement of the arrow cue was aligned with the locations of relevant objects in WM. Experiment 2c showed that the same benefit also occurs when participants are not able to mark an updating location through eye fixations. Together, these data can be accounted for by a framework in which perceptual selection and selection in WM are separate mechanisms that interact through a shared spatial priority map.

Citing Articles

Selection within working memory impairs perceptual detection.

Macedo-Pascual J, Capilla A, Campo P, Hinojosa J, Poch C Psychon Bull Rev. 2023; 30(4):1442-1451.

PMID: 36596909 PMC: 10713682. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-022-02238-2.

Working Memory and Attention - A Conceptual Analysis and Review.

Oberauer K J Cogn. 2019; 2(1):36.

PMID: 31517246 PMC: 6688548. DOI: 10.5334/joc.58.

Selection of Visual Objects in Perception and Working Memory One at a Time.

Thigpen N, Petro N, Oschwald J, Oberauer K, Keil A Psychol Sci. 2019; 30(9):1259-1272.

PMID: 31322983 PMC: 6794657. DOI: 10.1177/0956797619854067.

On-item fixations during serial encoding do not affect spatial working memory.

Czoschke S, Henschke S, Lange E Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019; 81(8):2766-2787.

PMID: 31254260 PMC: 6856038. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-019-01786-5.

The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences.

Hedge C, Powell G, Sumner P Behav Res Methods. 2017; 50(3):1166-1186.

PMID: 28726177 PMC: 5990556. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1.

References

Hoffman J, Subramaniam B . The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Percept Psychophys. 1995; 57(6):787-95. DOI: 10.3758/bf03206794. View

Maxcey-Richard A, Hollingworth A . The strategic retention of task-relevant objects in visual working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012; 39(3):760-72. PMC: 3855846. DOI: 10.1037/a0029496. View

Gazzaley A, Nobre A . Top-down modulation: bridging selective attention and working memory. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012; 16(2):129-35. PMC: 3510782. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.11.014. View

Fougnie D, Marois R . Distinct capacity limits for attention and working memory: Evidence from attentive tracking and visual working memory paradigms. Psychol Sci. 2006; 17(6):526-34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01739.x. View

Hollingworth A, Maxcey-Richard A . Selective maintenance in visual working memory does not require sustained visual attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012; 39(4):1047-58. PMC: 3594119. DOI: 10.1037/a0030238. View

Bays P, Husain M . Dynamic shifts of limited working memory resources in human vision. Science. 2008; 321(5890):851-4. PMC: 2532743. DOI: 10.1126/science.1158023. View

Cowan N . The focus of attention as observed in visual working memory tasks: making sense of competing claims. Neuropsychologia. 2011; 49(6):1401-6. PMC: 3095706. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.01.035. View

Brainard D . The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat Vis. 1997; 10(4):433-6. View

Woodman G, Luck S . Visual search is slowed when visuospatial working memory is occupied. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004; 11(2):269-74. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196569. View

10.

Kubler A, Murphy K, Kaufman J, Stein E, Garavan H . Co-ordination within and between verbal and visuospatial working memory: network modulation and anterior frontal recruitment. Neuroimage. 2003; 20(2):1298-308. DOI: 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00400-2. View

11.

Lange E, Starzynski C, Engbert R . Capture of the gaze does not capture the mind. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012; 74(6):1168-82. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-012-0318-8. View

12.

Nobre A, Coull J, Maquet P, Frith C, Vandenberghe R, Mesulam M . Orienting attention to locations in perceptual versus mental representations. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004; 16(3):363-73. DOI: 10.1162/089892904322926700. View

13.

Awh E, Vogel E, Oh S . Interactions between attention and working memory. Neuroscience. 2005; 139(1):201-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.08.023. View

14.

Posner M . Orienting of attention. Q J Exp Psychol. 1980; 32(1):3-25. DOI: 10.1080/00335558008248231. View

15.

Belopolsky A, Theeuwes J . Selection within visual memory representations activates the oculomotor system. Neuropsychologia. 2011; 49(6):1605-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.045. View

16.

Theeuwes J, Belopolsky A, Olivers C . Interactions between working memory, attention and eye movements. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2009; 132(2):106-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.01.005. View

17.

Olivers C, Peters J, Houtkamp R, Roelfsema P . Different states in visual working memory: when it guides attention and when it does not. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011; 15(7):327-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.004. View

18.

Belopolsky A, Theeuwes J . No functional role of attention-based rehearsal in maintenance of spatial working memory representations. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2009; 132(2):124-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.01.002. View

19.

Postle B . Working memory as an emergent property of the mind and brain. Neuroscience. 2005; 139(1):23-38. PMC: 1428794. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.06.005. View

20.

Oberauer K, Souza A, Druey M, Gade M . Analogous mechanisms of selection and updating in declarative and procedural working memory: experiments and a computational model. Cogn Psychol. 2013; 66(2):157-211. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.11.001. View