Literature DB >> 26903654

Inability to suppress salient distractors predicts low visual working memory capacity.

John M Gaspar1, Gregory J Christie2, David J Prime3, Pierre Jolicœur4, John J McDonald1.   

Abstract

According to contemporary accounts of visual working memory (vWM), the ability to efficiently filter relevant from irrelevant information contributes to an individual's overall vWM capacity. Although there is mounting evidence for this hypothesis, very little is known about the precise filtering mechanism responsible for controlling access to vWM and for differentiating low- and high-capacity individuals. Theoretically, the inefficient filtering observed in low-capacity individuals might be specifically linked to problems enhancing relevant items, suppressing irrelevant items, or both. To find out, we recorded neurophysiological activity associated with attentional selection and active suppression during a competitive visual search task. We show that high-capacity individuals actively suppress salient distractors, whereas low-capacity individuals are unable to suppress salient distractors in time to prevent those items from capturing attention. These results demonstrate that individual differences in vWM capacity are associated with the timing of a specific attentional control operation that suppresses processing of salient but irrelevant visual objects and restricts their access to higher stages of visual processing.

Entities:  

Keywords:  attention; distractor positivity; event-related potentials; suppression; working memory

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26903654      PMCID: PMC4822617          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1523471113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  46 in total

1.  Storage of features, conjunctions and objects in visual working memory.

Authors:  E K Vogel; G F Woodman; S J Luck
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 2.  Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection.

Authors:  Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2010-05-26

3.  The application of jackknife-based onset detection of lateralized readiness potential in correlative approaches.

Authors:  Jutta Stahl; Henning Gibbons
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.016

4.  Individual differences in components of reaction time distributions and their relations to working memory and intelligence.

Authors:  Florian Schmiedek; Klaus Oberauer; Oliver Wilhelm; Heinz-Martin Süss; Werner W Wittmann
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2007-08

5.  Attention selection, distractor suppression and N2pc.

Authors:  Veronica Mazza; Massimo Turatto; Alfonso Caramazza
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2008-11-14       Impact factor: 4.027

6.  Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory.

Authors:  Weiwei Zhang; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Individual differences in rate of encoding predict estimates of visual short-term memory capacity (K).

Authors:  Ali Jannati; John J McDonald; Vincent Di Lollo
Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol       Date:  2015-03-16

8.  On the electrophysiological evidence for the capture of visual attention.

Authors:  John J McDonald; Jessica J Green; Ali Jannati; Vincent Di Lollo
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-11-19       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  The role of working memory in visual selective attention.

Authors:  J W de Fockert; G Rees; C D Frith; N Lavie
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-03-02       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Discrete resource allocation in visual working memory.

Authors:  Brian Barton; Edward F Ester; Edward Awh
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  34 in total

1.  Set size effects on working memory precision are not due to an averaging of slots.

Authors:  Michael S Pratte
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Neural mechanisms of internal distraction suppression in visual attention.

Authors:  Abhijit Rajan; Sreenivasan Meyyappan; Harrison Walker; Immanuel Babu Henry Samuel; Zhenhong Hu; Mingzhou Ding
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 4.027

3.  Concrete mindset impairs filtering in visual working memory.

Authors:  Britt Hadar; Roy Luria; Nira Liberman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-12

4.  A finer-grained search reveals no evidence of the attentional capture by to-be-ignored features.

Authors:  Hansol Rheem; Yang Seok Cho
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Gestalt grouping cues can improve filtering performance in visual working memory.

Authors:  Ayala S Allon; Gili Vixman; Roy Luria
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2018-05-29

6.  Tuning in by tuning out distractions.

Authors:  Kirsten C S Adam; Edward K Vogel
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Neural Evidence for the Contribution of Active Suppression During Working Memory Filtering.

Authors:  Tobias Feldmann-Wüstefeld; Edward K Vogel
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 5.357

Review 8.  Inhibition as a potential resolution to the attentional capture debate.

Authors:  Nicholas Gaspelin; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychol       Date:  2018-10-29

9.  Oculomotor Inhibition of Salient Distractors: Voluntary Inhibition Cannot Override Selection History.

Authors:  Nicholas Gaspelin; John M Gaspar; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2019-04-09

10.  Combined Electrophysiological and Behavioral Evidence for the Suppression of Salient Distractors.

Authors:  Nicholas Gaspelin; Steven J Luck
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 3.225

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.