Literature DB >> 32952433

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

Nancy B Carlisle1, Geoffrey F Woodman2.   

Abstract

Various theoretical proposals have been put forward to explain how memory representations control attention during visual search. In this study, we use the first saccade on each trial as away to quantify the attentional impact of multiple types of representations held in working memory. Across two experiments, we found that a search target maintained in working memory was attended over 20 times more frequently than a non-memory-matching distractor. In addition, an item matching an additional object represented in working memory was attended 2 times more frequently than a non-memory matching distractor. These findings show that there is a measurable attentional impact of items maintained in working memory for a future task, however, such representations have a much weaker attentional impact than working memory representations of search targets.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Eye Tracking; Visual Attention; Visual Search; Working Memory

Year:  2019        PMID: 32952433      PMCID: PMC7500442          DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2019.1634172

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vis cogn        ISSN: 1350-6285


  53 in total

1.  Effects of load on the guidance of visual attention from working memory.

Authors:  Bao Zhang; John X Zhang; Sai Huang; Lingyue Kong; Suiping Wang
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  On the difference between working memory and attentional set.

Authors:  Christian N L Olivers; Martin Eimer
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  Automatic selection of irrelevant object features through working memory: evidence for top-down attentional capture.

Authors:  David Soto; Glyn W Humphreys
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2009

4.  The precision of attentional selection is far worse than the precision of the underlying memory representation.

Authors:  Dirk Kerzel
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2019-02-07

5.  Effects of search difficulty on the selection, maintenance, and learning of attentional templates.

Authors:  Eren Gunseli; Christian N L Olivers; Martijn Meeter
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Visual search and stimulus similarity.

Authors:  J Duncan; G W Humphreys
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  When memory is not enough: electrophysiological evidence for goal-dependent use of working memory representations in guiding visual attention.

Authors:  Nancy B Carlisle; Geoffrey F Woodman
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2011-01-21       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  What drives memory-driven attentional capture? The effects of memory type, display type, and search type.

Authors:  Christian N L Olivers
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Cognitive control over working memory biases of selection.

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

10.  Two visual working memory representations simultaneously control attention.

Authors:  Yanan Chen; Feng Du
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  3 in total

1.  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

2.  Theoretical distinction between functional states in working memory and their corresponding neural states.

Authors:  Mark G Stokes; Paul S Muhle-Karbe; Nicholas E Myers
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2020-09-24

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.