The study investigated the effect of selection cues in working memory (WM) on the fate of not-selected contents of WM. Experiments 1A and 1B showed that focusing on 1 cued item in WM does not impair memory for the remaining items. The nonfocused items are maintained in WM even when this is not required by the task. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that items that were once focused in WM remain strengthened after the focus shifts away from them. When defocused items are presented as mismatching recognition probes, they are rejected better than other mismatching probes (Experiments 2 and 3). When a defocused item was later cued again, such that the focus had to shift back to it, that item was recognized better than an item cued for the first time (Experiment 3). The results support the distinction between mechanisms for temporary maintenance and the focus of attention in WM, and they challenge theories that explain maintenance and focusing by the same mechanisms, such as a limited number of slots or a limited resource. Keywords: working memory, attention, focusingOften, we have to hold several pieces of information in working memory (WM), but for a particular cognitive operation we need to focus on only a subset of them. What are the consequences of focusing for the remaining, unfocused information in WM, and what happens with the focused information once it is defocused later? In this article we investigate how focusing information affects nonfocused and defocused information in WM for visual information. We interpret the results within three theoretical frameworks for characterizing WM: theories assuming a discrete WM capacity (

This article provides evidence that refreshing, a hypothetical attention-based process operating in working memory (WM), improves the accessibility of visual representations for recall. "Thinking of", one of several concurrently active representations, is assumed to refresh its trace in WM, protecting the representation from being forgotten. The link between refreshing and WM performance, however, has only been tenuously supported by empirical evidence. Here, we controlled which and how often individual items were refreshed in a color reconstruction task by presenting cues prompting participants to think of specific WM items during the retention interval. We show that the frequency with which an item is refreshed improves recall of this item from visual WM. Our study establishes a role of refreshing in recall from visual WM and provides a new method for studying the impact of refreshing on the amount of information we can keep accessible for ongoing cognition.

In working memory (WM) tasks, performance can be boosted by directing attention to one memory object: When a retro-cue in the retention interval indicates which object will be tested, responding is faster and more accurate (the retro-cue benefit). We tested whether the retro-cue benefit in WM depends on sustained attention to the cued object by inserting an attention-demanding interruption task between the retro-cue and the memory test. In the first experiment, the interruption task required participants to shift their visual attention away from the cued representation and to a visual classification task on colors. In the second and third experiments, the interruption task required participants to shift their focal attention within WM: Attention was directed away from the cued representation by probing another representation from the memory array prior to probing the cued object. The retro-cue benefit was not attenuated by shifts of perceptual attention or by shifts of attention within WM. We concluded that sustained attention is not needed to maintain the cued representation in a state of heightened accessibility.

Visual working memory (VWM) has a limited capacity. This limitation can be mitigated by the use of focused attention: if attention is drawn to the relevant working memory content before test, performance improves (the so-called retro-cue benefit). This study tests 2 explanations of the retro-cue benefit: (a) Focused attention protects memory representations from interference by visual input at test, and (b) focusing attention enhances retrieval. Across 6 experiments using color recognition and color reproduction tasks, we varied the amount of color interference at test, and the delay between a retrieval cue (i.e., the retro-cue) and the memory test. Retro-cue benefits were larger when the memory test introduced interfering visual stimuli, showing that the retro-cue effect is in part because of protection from visual interference. However, when visual interference was held constant, retro-cue benefits were still obtained whenever the retro-cue enabled retrieval of an object from VWM but delayed response selection. Our results show that accessible information in VWM might be lost in the processes of testing memory because of visual interference and incomplete retrieval. This is not an inevitable state of affairs, though: Focused attention can be used to get the most out of VWM. (PsycINFO Database Record

During the retention interval of a working memory task, presenting a retro-cue directs attention to 1 of the items in working memory. Testing the cued item leads to faster and more accurate responses. We contrasted 5 explanations of this benefit: (a) removal of noncued items, (b) strengthening of the cued item, (c) protection from probe interference, (d) protection from degradation, and (e) prioritization during the decision process. Experiment 1 showed that retro-cues reduced the set size effect in a visual recognition task, and did so increasingly with more time available to use the retro-cue. This finding is predicted only by Hypotheses 1 and 2. Hypotheses 3 through 5 were ruled out as explanations of the retro-cue benefit in this experiment. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants encoded 2 sequentially presented memory sets. In half of the trials, 1 item from the first set was retro-cued during the interset interval. Retro-cues improved memory for the second set. This reloading benefit is predicted only by the removal hypothesis: Irrelevant contents are removed from working memory, freeing capacity to encode new contents. Experiment 3 also yielded evidence that strengthening of the cued item might contribute to the retro-cue effect.