Attentional templates are protected from retroactive interference during visual search: Converging evidence from event-related potentials

Cong, Stanislas Huynh; Kerzel, Dirk

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.108026

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, search efficiency is impaired in dual-compared with single-target search. Although a growing body of studies indicates that multiple attentional templates can guide visual search simultaneously (Ansorge et al, 2005;Bahle et al, 2020;Beck et al, 2012;Beck & Hollingworth, 2017;Berggren et al, 2020;Christie et al, 2015;Grubert & Eimer, 2015Huynh Cong & Kerzel, 2020, 2021bIrons et al, 2012;Kerzel & Grubert, 2021;Kerzel & Witzel, 2019;Moore & Weissman, 2010;Roper & Vecera, 2012), further research is necessary to confirm that this is the case in our design.…”

Section: Open Questionsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…From the perspective of the single-template hypothesis (Olivers et al, 2011), the efficiency of attentional templates depends on the sequential switch between “accessory” and “active” WM states (Ort et al, 2017, 2018). However, the necessity to sequentially switch between WM states is called into question by numerous studies showing that more than one representation can be “active” at a time (Ansorge et al, 2005; Bahle et al, 2020; Beck et al, 2012; Beck & Hollingworth, 2017; Berggren et al, 2020; Christie et al, 2015; Grubert & Eimer, 2015, 2016; Huynh Cong & Kerzel, 2020, 2021b; Irons et al, 2012; Kerzel & Grubert, 2021; Kerzel & Witzel, 2019; Moore & Weissman, 2010; Roper & Vecera, 2012). From the perspective of the multiple-template hypothesis (Beck et al, 2012), several attentional templates are simultaneously “active” in WM, but changes in activity determine their efficiency during visual search (Bahle et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present study, we argue that the allocation of WM resources is a promising candidate in this regard. Based on resource models of WM (Bays et al, 2009; Bays & Husain, 2008; Ma et al, 2014) and studies that investigated visual search from this perspective (Dube et al, 2019; Dube & Al-Aidroos, 2019; Hollingworth & Hwang, 2013; Huynh Cong & Kerzel, 2020, 2021b; Kerzel & Witzel, 2019; Rajsic et al, 2017; Rajsic & Woodman, 2020), Huynh Cong and Kerzel (2021a) recently conceptualized the relationships between resource allocation and visual search. One of the central points of this new framework is that the allocation of WM resources determines the efficiency of attentional templates during visual search.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The idea is to compare single- with dual-target search with respect to overall performance or attentional capture. In this context, behavioral (Ansorge et al, 2005; Bahle et al, 2020; Huynh Cong & Kerzel, 2020; Irons et al, 2012; Kerzel & Grubert, 2021; Kerzel & Witzel, 2019; Moore & Weissman, 2010; Roper & Vecera, 2012), electrophysiological (Berggren et al, 2020; Christie et al, 2015; Grubert & Eimer, 2015, 2016; Huynh Cong & Kerzel, 2021b), and eye-movement (Beck et al, 2012; Beck & Hollingworth, 2017) studies demonstrated that two attentional templates can guide visual search simultaneously. Importantly, however, two attentional templates may not be as efficient as one attentional template.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The allocation of working memory resources determines the efficiency of attentional templates in single- and dual-target search.

Cong¹,

Kerzel²

2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attentional templates are representations of target features in working memory (WM). Although two attentional templates can guide visual search in dual-target search, search efficiency is reduced compared with one attentional template in single-target search. Here, we investigated whether the allocation of WM resources contributes to these differences. Participants always memorized two colors, but the use of the corresponding WM representations varied. In the blocked conditions, the two colors were either maintained as attentional templates for dual-target search or as simple WM representations for recall only. In the mixed condition, one color was maintained as an attentional template for single-target search and the other as a simple WM representation for recall only. Reaction times (RTs) were delayed and recall precision reduced with two attentional templates in the blocked condition compared with one attentional template in the mixed condition, indicating that search efficiency and WM resources decreased in dual-compared with single-target search. Moreover, the attentional template was always recalled more precisely than the simple WM representation in the mixed condition, despite lowered visual search frequency (Experiment 2) and retro-cueing (Experiment 3). Consistent with the existence of an "active" WM state, resources were strongly biased toward the attentional template in single-target search. In dual-target search, however, resources were balanced between two attentional templates and flexibly adjusted with retro-cues, as with two simple WM representations. Therefore, the allocation of WM resources goes beyond the traditional dichotomy between "active" and "accessory" WM states and explains how attentional templates guide visual search with variable efficiency.

show abstract