A Comparison of Mental Imagery and Perceptual Cueing Across Domains of Attention

Overview

Journal Atten Percept Psychophys

Publisher Springer

Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology

Date 2023 Jun 22

PMID 37349626

Authors

Ming-Ray Liao

James D Grindell

Brian A Anderson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Mental imagery and perceptual cues can influence subsequent visual search performance, but examination of this influence has been limited to low-level features like colors and shapes. The present study investigated how the two types of cues influence low-level visual search, visual search with realistic objects, and executive attention. On each trial, participants were either presented with a colored square or tasked with using mental imagery to generate a colored square that could match the target (valid trial) or distractor (invalid trial) in the search array that followed (Experiments 1 and 3). In a separate experiment, the colored square displayed or generated was replaced with a realistic object in a specific category that could appear as a target or distractor in the search array (Experiment 2). Although the displayed object was in the same category as an item in the search display, they were never a perfect match (e.g., jam drop cookie instead of chocolate chip). Our findings revealed that the facilitation of performance on valid trials compared with invalid trials was greater for perceptual cues than imagery cues for low-level features (Experiment 1), whereas the influence of these two types of cues was comparable in the context of realistic objects (Experiment 2) The influence of mental imagery appears not to extend to the resolution of conflict generated by color-word Stroop stimuli (Experiment 3). The present findings extend our understanding of how mental imagery influences the allocation of attention.

References

Brady T, Stormer V . The role of meaning in visual working memory: Real-world objects, but not simple features, benefit from deeper processing. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2021; 48(7):942-958. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0001014. View

Bugatus L, Weiner K, Grill-Spector K . Task alters category representations in prefrontal but not high-level visual cortex. Neuroimage. 2017; 155:437-449. PMC: 5518738. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.03.062. View

Chang S, Lewis D, Pearson J . The functional effects of color perception and color imagery. J Vis. 2013; 13(10). DOI: 10.1167/13.10.4. View

Cochrane B, Nwabuike A, Thomson D, Milliken B . An imagery-induced reversal of intertrial priming in visual search. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017; 44(4):572-587. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000470. View

Cochrane B, Siddhpuria S, Milliken B . Cueing color imagery: A critical analysis of imagery-perception congruency effects. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018; 45(8):1410-1421. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000653. View

Collegio A, Nah J, Scotti P, Shomstein S . Attention scales according to inferred real-world object size. Nat Hum Behav. 2019; 3(1):40-47. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-018-0485-2. View

Corbetta M, Patel G, Shulman G . The reorienting system of the human brain: from environment to theory of mind. Neuron. 2008; 58(3):306-24. PMC: 2441869. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.017. View

Corbetta M, Shulman G . Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002; 3(3):201-15. DOI: 10.1038/nrn755. View

Corbetta M, Shulman G, Miezin F, Petersen S . Superior parietal cortex activation during spatial attention shifts and visual feature conjunction. Science. 1995; 270(5237):802-5. DOI: 10.1126/science.270.5237.802. View

10.

de Leeuw J . jsPsych: a JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser. Behav Res Methods. 2014; 47(1):1-12. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y. View

11.

Dijkstra N, Bosch S, van Gerven M . Shared Neural Mechanisms of Visual Perception and Imagery. Trends Cogn Sci. 2019; 23(5):423-434. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.004. View

12.

Eimer M . The neural basis of attentional control in visual search. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014; 18(10):526-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.05.005. View

13.

Gunseli E, Olivers C, Meeter M . Task-irrelevant memories rapidly gain attentional control with learning. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015; 42(3):354-362. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000134. View

14.

Harrison S, Tong F . Decoding reveals the contents of visual working memory in early visual areas. Nature. 2009; 458(7238):632-5. PMC: 2709809. DOI: 10.1038/nature07832. View

15.

Hebart M, Bankson B, Harel A, Baker C, Cichy R . The representational dynamics of task and object processing in humans. Elife. 2018; 7. PMC: 5811210. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.32816. View

16.

Hickey C, Di Lollo V, McDonald J . Electrophysiological indices of target and distractor processing in visual search. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008; 21(4):760-75. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21039. View

17.

Hopf J, Luck S, Girelli M, Hagner T, Mangun G, Scheich H . Neural sources of focused attention in visual search. Cereb Cortex. 2000; 10(12):1233-41. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/10.12.1233. View

18.

Keogh R, Pearson J . Mental imagery and visual working memory. PLoS One. 2011; 6(12):e29221. PMC: 3237605. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029221. View

19.

Konkle T, Brady T, Alvarez G, Oliva A . Conceptual distinctiveness supports detailed visual long-term memory for real-world objects. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2010; 139(3):558-78. PMC: 3398125. DOI: 10.1037/a0019165. View

20.

Kosslyn S, Ganis G, Thompson W . Neural foundations of imagery. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001; 2(9):635-42. DOI: 10.1038/35090055. View