Literature DB >> 30937674

Do we remember templates better so that we can reject distractors better?

Jason Rajsic1, Geoffrey F Woodman2.   

Abstract

Feature Integration Theory proposed that attention shifted between target-like representations in our visual field. However, the nature of the representations that determined what was target like received less specification than the nature of the attention shifts. In recent years, visual search research has focused on the nature of the memory representations that we use to guide our shifts of attention. Sensitive measures of memory quality indicate that the template representations are remembered better than other, merely maintained, memories. Here we tested the hypothesis that we prepare for difficult search tasks by storing a higher fidelity target representation in working memory than we do when preparing for an easy search task. To test this hypothesis, we explicitly tested participants' memory of the target color they searched for (i.e., the attentional template) versus another memory that was not used to guide attention (i.e., an accessory representation) following blocks of searches with easy-to-find targets (i.e., distractors were homogeneously colored) to blocks of searches with hard-to-find targets (i.e., distractors were heterogeneously colored). Although homogeneous-distractor searches required minimal precision for distractor rejection, we found that templates were still remembered better than accessories, just like we found in a heterogeneous-distractor search. As a consequence, we suggest that stronger memories for templates likely reflects the need to decide whether new perceptual inputs match the template, and not an attempt to create a better template representation in anticipation of difficult searches.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attention: Selective; Visual search; Visual working memory

Year:  2020        PMID: 30937674      PMCID: PMC6773512          DOI: 10.3758/s13414-019-01721-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  38 in total

1.  Orienting attention to locations in internal representations.

Authors:  Ivan C Griffin; Anna C Nobre
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2003-11-15       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search.

Authors:  J M Wolfe; K R Cave; S L Franzel
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  A neural representation of prior information during perceptual inference.

Authors:  Christopher Summerfield; Etienne Koechlin
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 17.173

Review 4.  A theory of eye movements during target acquisition.

Authors:  Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Conjunction search revisited.

Authors:  A Treisman; S Sato
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Distractor probability changes the shape of the attentional template.

Authors:  Joy J Geng; Nicholas E DiQuattro; Jonathan Helm
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  How serial is serial processing in vision?

Authors:  E Zohary; S Hochstein
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 1.490

8.  Do the contents of visual working memory automatically influence attentional selection during visual search?

Authors:  Geoffrey F Woodman; Steven J Luck
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Decoding attended information in short-term memory: an EEG study.

Authors:  Joshua J LaRocque; Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock; Andrew T Drysdale; Klaus Oberauer; Bradley R Postle
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  Cognitive control over working memory biases of selection.

Authors:  Anastasia Kiyonaga; Tobias Egner; David Soto
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-08
View more
  3 in total

1.  Attentional Guidance and Match Decisions Rely on Different Template Information During Visual Search.

Authors:  Xinger Yu; Timothy D Hanks; Joy J Geng
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2021-12-08

2.  Visual search guidance uses coarser template information than target-match decisions.

Authors:  Xinger Yu; Simran K Johal; Joy J Geng
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 2.157

Review 3.  Allocation of resources in working memory: Theoretical and empirical implications for visual search.

Authors:  Stanislas Huynh Cong; Dirk Kerzel
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-03-17
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.