Literature DB >> 21145332

On the difference between working memory and attentional set.

Christian N L Olivers1, Martin Eimer.   

Abstract

Previous work has shown that distractors present in a visual search display attract attention when they match objects kept in visual working memory. It seems that maintaining an object in working memory is functionally identical to adopting an attentional set for that object. We test this conjecture by asking observers to perform a memory task as well as a visual search task (in which memory-related distractors could return), but to leave the observer uncertain as to which of these tasks would have to be completed first. This way, observers ought to more readily look for the memorized information, rather than just remember it. Memory-related distractor effects were larger than when participants knew the order of the tasks beforehand, consistent with the idea that trying to attend to something involves additional processes or representations beyond those needed for simply storing an item.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21145332     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.11.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  21 in total

1.  Neural evidence for a distinction between short-term memory and the focus of attention.

Authors:  Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock; Andrew T Drysdale; Klaus Oberauer; Bradley R Postle
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2011-09-29       Impact factor: 3.225

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

Authors:  Nina Thigpen; Nathan M Petro; Jessica Oschwald; Klaus Oberauer; Andreas Keil
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2019-07-19

Review 3.  Where do we store the memory representations that guide attention?

Authors:  Geoffrey F Woodman; Nancy B Carlisle; Robert M G Reinhart
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-02-25       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  The presence of a distractor matching the content of working memory induces delayed quitting in visual search.

Authors:  Yifan Wu; Yi Pan
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Quantifying the Attentional Impact of Working Memory Matching Targets and Distractors.

Authors:  Nancy B Carlisle; Geoffrey F Woodman
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2019-06-27

6.  Reconciling conflicting electrophysiological findings on the guidance of attention by working memory.

Authors:  Nancy B Carlisle; Geoffrey F Woodman
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Cognitive control over working memory biases of selection.

Authors:  Anastasia Kiyonaga; Tobias Egner; David Soto
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-08

8.  The costs of switching attentional sets.

Authors:  Isabel Dombrowe; Mieke Donk; Christian N L Olivers
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  What not to look for: Electrophysiological evidence that searchers prefer positive templates.

Authors:  Jason Rajsic; Nancy B Carlisle; Geoffrey F Woodman
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 3.054

10.  Controlling the Flow of Distracting Information in Working Memory.

Authors:  Nicole Hakim; Tobias Feldmann-Wüstefeld; Edward Awh; Edward K Vogel
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 5.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.