Are there multiple ways to direct attention in working memory?

Abstract

In visual working memory tasks, memory for an item is enhanced if participants are told that the item is relatively more valuable than others presented within the same trial. Experiment 1 explored whether these probe value boosts (termed prioritization effects in previous literature) are affected by probe frequency (i.e., how often the more valuable item is tested). Participants were presented with four colored shapes sequentially and asked to recall the color of one probed item following a delay. They were informed that the first item was more valuable (differential probe value) or as valuable as the other items (equal probe value), and that this item would be tested more frequently (differential probe frequency) or as frequently (equal probe frequency) as the other items. Probe value and probe frequency boosts were observed at the first position, though both were accompanied by costs to other items. Probe value and probe frequency boosts were additive, suggesting the manipulations yield independent effects. Further supporting this, experiment 2 revealed that probe frequency boosts are not reliant on executive resources, directly contrasting with previous findings regarding probe value. Taken together, these outcomes suggest there may be several ways in which attention can be directed in working memory.

Attention and binding in visual working memory: Two forms of attention and two kinds of buffer storage

“…It also differs from our procedure in that the retro-cue typically provides information about the probabilities that different items will be tested whereas all items had an equal probability of being tested in our studies. Indeed, Atkinson et al (2018) suggested that this may be an important methodological distinction, and that information regarding an item's value and its probability of being tested may motivate distinct forms of attentional direction.…”

Multiple high-reward items can be prioritized in working memory but with greater vulnerability to interference

“…Such an ability has already been reported in the context of prelearning manipulations, in which certain stimuli are preassociated before the memory experiment with different monetary values (Gong & Li, 2014;Infanti, Hickey, Menghi, & Turatto, 2017;Thomas, FitzGibbon, & Raymond, 2016;Wallis, Stokes, Arnold, & Nobre, 2015). It has recently been extended to more online processing and explored experimentally in a series of studies in which participants were instructed to remember a sequence of visual stimuli, but to prioritize certain items from within this sequence based on associated reward values (Atkinson et al, 2018;Hitch, Hu, Allen, & Baddeley, 2018;Hu, Allen, Baddeley, & Hitch, 2016;Hu, Hitch, Baddeley, Zhang, & Allen, 2014). This work consistently produces improved recall accuracy for prioritized items, alongside costs to deprioritized items, indicating that limited resources can be flexibly managed online to optimize task performance.…”

“…While conceptually similar, the direction of attention via either reward values or visual cues is likely to involve at least some nonoverlapping forms of processing. We have so far assumed that reward-based manipulations (Atkinson et al, 2018;Hitch et al, 2018;Hu et al, 2016;Hu et al, 2014) primarily reflect endogenous control of directed attention; certain items are associated with higher reward values based on their serial position, and participants are encouraged to strategically utilize this points scheme when determining how to allocate their attention across the target items throughout each phase of the trial. Reliable effects of this manipulation are consistently observed even though the reward allocation is not predictive of which item will be tested.…”

“…Reliable effects of this manipulation are consistently observed even though the reward allocation is not predictive of which item will be tested. Indeed, recent evidence indicates that reward-based prioritization effects appear to emerge independently of changes in predictive validity when these factors are orthogonally manipulated (Atkinson et al, 2018). In contrast, visual cueing studies typically involve a perceptual stimulus that directs attention toward a particular item (e.g., a shape outline in the location of the cued item, or an arrow directing to that location).…”

Individual differences in working memory and general intelligence indexed by P200 and P300: A latent variable model

“…These include, for example, the hypothesized phonological loop, which maintains verbal information, and the visuospatial sketchpad, which stores visual and spatial material (Baddeley, 2012). Although this established model concerning WM has been widely accepted, it has been recognized that the CES construct is the most complex system of WM ( Baddeley, 2012) with the need for clarity concerning its specific functions ( Atkinson et al , 2018;Baddeley, 1996).…”