Literature DB >> 30069870

What happens to an individual visual working memory representation when it is interrupted?

Gi-Yeul Bae1, Steven J Luck1.   

Abstract

This study tested the hypothesis that even the simplest cognitive tasks require the storage of information in working memory (WM), distorting any information that was previously stored in WM. Experiment 1 tested this hypothesis by requiring observers to perform a simple letter discrimination task while they were holding a single orientation in WM. We predicted that performing the task on the interposed letter stimulus would cause the orientation memory to become less precise and more categorical compared to when the letter was absent or when it was present but could be ignored. This prediction was confirmed. Experiment 2 tested the modality specificity of this effect by replacing the visual letter discrimination task with an auditory pitch discrimination task. Unlike the interposed visual stimulus, the interposed auditory stimulus produced little or no disruption of WM, consistent with the use of modality-specific representations. Thus, performing a simple visual discrimination task, but not a simple auditory discrimination task, distorts information about a single feature being maintained in visual WM. We suggest that the interposed task eliminates information stored within the focus of attention, leaving behind a WM representation outside the focus of attention that is relatively imprecise and categorical.
© 2018 The British Psychological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  categorical bias; interruption; working memory

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30069870      PMCID: PMC6358517          DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12339

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Psychol        ISSN: 0007-1269


  49 in total

1.  The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity.

Authors:  N Cowan
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 12.579

2.  Access to information in working memory: exploring the focus of attention.

Authors:  Klaus Oberauer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  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

4.  Distinct capacity limits for attention and working memory: Evidence from attentive tracking and visual working memory paradigms.

Authors:  Daryl Fougnie; René Marois
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-06

5.  Working memory and focal attention.

Authors:  B McElree
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  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

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

Authors:  Geoffrey F Woodman; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-04

8.  When visual and verbal memories compete: evidence of cross-domain limits in working memory.

Authors:  Candice C Morey; Nelson Cowan
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-04

Review 9.  Working memory in primate sensory systems.

Authors:  Tatiana Pasternak; Mark W Greenlee
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 34.870

10.  Is the binding of visual features in working memory resource-demanding?

Authors:  Richard J Allen; Alan D Baddeley; Graham J Hitch
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2006-05
View more
  8 in total

1.  Visual and verbal working memory loads interfere with scene-viewing.

Authors:  Deborah A Cronin; Candace E Peacock; John M Henderson
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 2.  Distraction in Visual Working Memory: Resistance is Not Futile.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Lorenc; Remington Mallett; Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Active Working Memory and Simple Cognitive Operations.

Authors:  Johanna Kreither; Orestis Papaioannou; Steven J Luck
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Breaking the cardinal rule: The impact of interitem interaction and attentional priority on the cardinal biases in orientation working memory.

Authors:  Gi-Yeul Bae
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-10-17       Impact factor: 2.157

5.  Distraction biases working memory for faces.

Authors:  Remington Mallett; Anurima Mummaneni; Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-04

6.  Working memory prioritization impacts neural recovery from distraction.

Authors:  Remington Mallett; Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2019-09-20       Impact factor: 4.027

7.  Is Categorization in Visual Working Memory a Way to Reduce Mental Effort? A Pupillometry Study.

Authors:  Cherie Zhou; Monicque M Lorist; Sebastiaan Mathôt
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2022-09

8.  Material constancy in perception and working memory.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Tsuda; Munendo Fujimichi; Mikuho Yokoyama; Jun Saiki
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 2.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.