Both visual and verbal information in working memory guide visual attention toward a memory-matching object. We tested whether: (a) visual and verbal representations have different effects on the deployment of attention; and (b) both types of representations can be used equally in a top-down manner. We asked participants to maintain a visual cue or a verbal cue at the beginning of each trial, and ended with a memory task to ensure that each cue was represented actively in working memory. Before the memory task, a visual search task appeared where validity was manipulated as valid, neutral, or invalid. We also manipulated the probability of valid trials (20%, 50%, and 80%), which had been told to the participants prior to the task. Consistent with earlier findings, attentional guidance by visual representations was modulated by the probability. We also found that this was true for verbal representations, and that these effects did not differ between representation types. These results suggest that both visual and verbal representations in working memory can be used strategically to control attentional guidance.

No abstract

Background: Although people can pay attention to targets while ignoring distractors, previous research suggests that target enhancement and distractor suppression work separately and independently. Here, we sought to replicate previous findings and re-establish their independence. Methods: We employed an internet-based psychological experiment. We presented participants with a visual search task in which they searched for a specified shape with or without a singleton. We replicated the singleton-presence benefit in search performance, but this effect was limited to cases where the target color was fixed across all trials. In a randomly intermixed probe task (30% of all trials), the participants searched for a letter among colored probes; we used this task to assess how far attention was separately allocated toward the target or distractor dimensions. Results: We found a negative correlation between target enhancement and distractor suppression, indicating that the participants who paid closer attention to target features ignored distractor features less effectively and vice versa. Averaged data showed no benefit from target color or cost from distractor color, possibly because of the substantial differences in strategy across participants. Conclusions: These results suggest that target enhancement and distractor suppression guide attention in mutually dependent ways and that the relative contribution of these components depends on the participants’ search strategy.