Beyond perceptual load and dilution: a review of the role of working memory in selective attention

Abstract

The perceptual load and dilution models differ fundamentally in terms of the proposed mechanism underlying variation in distractibility during different perceptual conditions. However, both models predict that distracting information can be processed beyond perceptual processing under certain conditions, a prediction that is well-supported by the literature. Load theory proposes that in such cases, where perceptual task aspects do not allow for sufficient attentional selectivity, the maintenance of task-relevant processing depends on cognitive control mechanisms, including working memory. The key prediction is that working memory plays a role in keeping clear processing priorities in the face of potential distraction, and the evidence reviewed and evaluated in a meta-analysis here supports this claim, by showing that the processing of distracting information tends to be enhanced when load on a concurrent task of working memory is high. Low working memory capacity is similarly associated with greater distractor processing in selective attention, again suggesting that the unavailability of working memory during selective attention leads to an increase in distractibility. Together, these findings suggest that selective attention against distractors that are processed beyond perception depends on the availability of working memory. Possible mechanisms for the effects of working memory on selective attention are discussed.

Neural effects of cognitive control load on auditory selective attention

“…This model makes opposite predictions as to the effects of perceptual load and cognitive load on task-irrelevant information processing. Numerous studies, using behavioral and neuroimaging measures, have shown that indeed greater perceptual demand on a visual task is associated with reduced interference and successful selective attention, whereas higher demand on cognitive control (e.g., working memory, dual task) is associated with increased processing of irrelevant information (de Fockert, 2013; de Fockert et al, 2001; Kelley and Lavie, 2011; Rees et al, 1997; Schwartz et al, 2005; Xu et al, 2011). The effects of perceptual demand and working memory load on sensory processing of task-irrelevant visual distractors were observed as early as primary visual cortex (area V1) (Bahrami et al, 2007; Kelley and Lavie, 2011; Schwartz et al, 2005).…”

To hear or not to hear: Voice processing under visual load

“…This account has received substantial support from studies on vision (reviewed in de Fockert, 2013;Lavie, 2005) and audition (Alain & Izenberg, 2003;Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001;Dalton, Santangelo, & Spence, 2009;Fairnie, Moore, & Remington, 2016;Muller-Gass & Schröger, 2007; but see Murphy, Fraenkel, & Dalton, 2013), and from studies probing load theory for crossmodal attention (Berman & Colby, 2002;Brand-D'Abrescia & Lavie, 2008;Jacoby, Hall, & Mattingley, 2012;Macdonald & Lavie, 2011;Molloy, Griffiths, Chait, & Lavie, 2015;Raveh & Lavie, 2015; but see Tellinghuisen & Nowak, 2003). Interestingly, and at variance with load theory, several studies have suggested that faces present a special case, in the sense that they may recruit a domain-specific capacity-limited system (Neumann, Mohamed, & Schweinberger, 2011;Neumann & Schweinberger, 2008).…”

Effects of cognitive load on neural and behavioral responses to smoking-cue distractors

“…According to load theory (Lavie et al, 2004), higher working memory load impairs selective attention and increases distractor interference. Thus, when cognitive demands are low, interference is reduced due to more available resources to concurrently maintain task performance and process distracting stimuli (for review see: de Fockert, 2013). Several neuroimaging studies have highlighted the critical role of regions within the prefrontal cortex in the control of selective attention to task-specific stimuli (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002; de Fockert et al, 2004; de Fockert & Theeuwes, 2012; Hopfinger et al, 2001).…”