Literature DB >> 20853996

Spatial context learning survives interference from working memory load.

Timothy J Vickery1, Rachel S Sussman, Yuhong V Jiang.   

Abstract

The human visual system is constantly confronted with an overwhelming amount of information, only a subset of which can be processed in complete detail. Attention and implicit learning are two important mechanisms that optimize vision. This study addressed the relationship between these two mechanisms. Specifically we asked, Is implicit learning of spatial context affected by the amount of working memory load devoted to an irrelevant task? We tested observers in visual search tasks where search displays occasionally repeated. Observers became faster when searching repeated displays than unrepeated ones, showing contextual cuing. We found that the size of contextual cuing was unaffected by whether observers learned repeated displays under unitary attention or when their attention was divided using working memory manipulations. These results held when working memory was loaded by colors, dot patterns, individual dot locations, or multiple potential targets. We conclude that spatial context learning is robust to interference from manipulations that limit the availability of attention and working memory.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20853996      PMCID: PMC2998575          DOI: 10.1037/a0020558

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  28 in total

1.  Unsupervised statistical learning of higher-order spatial structures from visual scenes.

Authors:  J Fiser; R N Aslin
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-11

2.  Selective attention modulates implicit learning.

Authors:  Y Jiang; M M Chun
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2001-11

3.  Rapid natural scene categorization in the near absence of attention.

Authors:  Fei Fei Li; Rufin VanRullen; Christof Koch; Pietro Perona
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-06-20       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by visual information load and by number of objects.

Authors:  G A Alvarez; P Cavanagh
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2004-02

5.  Implicit, long-term spatial contextual memory.

Authors:  Marvin M Chun; Yuhong Jiang
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Visual search remains efficient when visual working memory is full.

Authors:  G F Woodman; E K Vogel; S J Luck
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-05

7.  The cost of search for multiple targets: effects of practice and target similarity.

Authors:  Tamaryn Menneer; Kyle R Cave; Nick Donnelly
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2009-06

8.  Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events.

Authors:  D J Simons; C F Chabris
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 1.490

9.  Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity.

Authors:  Edward K Vogel; Maro G Machizawa
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Visual search is slowed when visuospatial working memory is occupied.

Authors:  Geoffrey F Woodman; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-04
View more
  14 in total

Review 1.  Habitual versus goal-driven attention.

Authors:  Yuhong V Jiang
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2017-07-04       Impact factor: 4.027

2.  Spatial working memory interferes with explicit, but not probabilistic cuing of spatial attention.

Authors:  Bo-Yeong Won; Yuhong V Jiang
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  Availability of attention affects time-to-contact estimation.

Authors:  Robin Baurès; François Maquestiaux; Patricia R DeLucia; Alexis Defer; Elise Prigent
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  The relationship between visual attention and visual working memory encoding: A dissociation between covert and overt orienting.

Authors:  A Caglar Tas; Steven J Luck; Andrew Hollingworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Does a simultaneous memory load affect older and younger adults' implicit associative learning?

Authors:  Katherine R Gamble; James H Howard; Darlene V Howard
Journal:  Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn       Date:  2013-04-15

6.  What is the context of contextual cueing?

Authors:  Tal Makovski
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-12

7.  Executive working memory involved in the learning of contextual cueing effect.

Authors:  Minghui Chen; Chao Wang; Ben Sclodnick; Guang Zhao; Xingze Liu
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-09-19       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Stimulus variability and task relevance modulate binding-learning.

Authors:  Nithin George; Tobias Egner
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  History of reading struggles linked to enhanced learning in low spatial frequency scenes.

Authors:  Matthew H Schneps; James R Brockmole; Gerhard Sonnert; Marc Pomplun
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Medial temporal lobe-dependent repetition suppression and enhancement due to implicit vs. explicit processing of individual repeated search displays.

Authors:  Thomas Geyer; Florian Baumgartner; Hermann J Müller; Stefan Pollmann
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.