Components of working memory and visual selective attention.

Burnham, Bryan R.; Sabia, Matthew; Langan, Catherine

doi:10.1037/a0033753

Cited by 39 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(136 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…WM tasks t ypically present increasingly complex sequences of information (words, letters, numbers, shapes, pictures, arrows, etc.) to participants and ask that they recall, reproduce, or use that information in the order it was presented to them (for some examples of WM tasks, see Burnham, Sabia and Langan 2013).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heart Rate Variability During a Working Memory Task: Does Touching a Dog or Person Affect the Response?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The presence of a dog has been associated with reduced responses to stressors in several, but not all, previous studies. The presence of a dog has also been related to improved performance on some cognitive tasks. The current study was designed to evaluate the effect of touching a dog on stress responses to a working memory task (WMT). Heart rate variability (HRV) responses to a WMT while touching a dog were compared with responses while touching a stuffed dog and a person. HRV was recorded while 53 university students aged 18 to 41 years sat on the floor next to a randomly assigned co-participant (real dog, stuffed dog, or human) and listened to a reading before and after completing a WMT. This procedure was repeated with the two other co-participants, in a randomized block order. All participants wore an HRV monitor and placed their non-dominant hand on the co-participant throughout the appropriate phase. The WMT involved pointing to increasingly complicated sequences of geometric shapes until the participant failed three times at one level. Linear mixed models analysis for nested data revealed that the memory task was stressful, with parasympathetic nervous system arousal significantly lower during the memory task than the preor post-memory listening tasks (rMSSD: ps < 0.001, = 0.023; high frequency: ps < 0.001, = 0.001). Neither of the measures differed significantly among the three conditions. There also were no significant interactions, indicating that the stress response to the memory task did not differ when the participants were touching the three different co-participants. Touching a dog did not reduce arousal in response to a stressful memory task. This research suggests that a dog may not be effective at reducing stress responses to this type of stressor. Another possibility is that the presence of a dog is more effective than touching a dog at reducing stress responses. Further investigation will be required to evaluate these possibilities. 513Anthrozoös

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heart Rate Variability During a Working Memory Task: Does Touching a Dog or Person Affect the Response?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although most studies of cognitive load have used verbal working memory tasks (e.g., remembering a series of numbers or letters), a recent study attempted to assess the effect of loading other working memory components (Burnham, Sabia, & Langan, 2014). For participants performing a visual search task (identifying a green diamond among five or nine green circles), loading the central executive (i.e., participants were given a starting number and had to complete a backwardcounting task for the duration of the trial), visual working memory (remembering four colored squares and indicating whether a probe color was present in the original set), and spatial working memory (remembering the locations of two squares and indicating whether two probe squares were in the same locations as the original set) increased distraction.…”

Section: Cognitive Loadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Twenty years of load theory—Where are we now, and where should we go next?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selective attention allows us to ignore what is taskirrelevant and focus on what is task-relevant. The cognitive and neural mechanisms that underlie this process are key topics of investigation in cognitive psychology. One of the more prominent theories of attention is perceptual load theory, which suggests that the efficiency of selective attention is dependent on both perceptual and cognitive load. It is now more than 20 years since the proposal of load theory, and it is a good time to evaluate the evidence in support of this influential model. The present article supplements and extends previous reviews (Lavie, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75-82. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004, 2005, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 143-148. doi:10.1177/ 0963721410370295, 2010 by examining more recent research in what appears to be a rapidly expanding area. The article comprises five parts, examining (1) evidence for the effects of perceptual load on attention, (2) cognitive load, (3) individual differences under load, (4) alternative theories and criticisms, and (5) the future of load theory. We argue that the key next step for load theory will be the application of the model to real-world tasks. The potential benefits of applied attention research are numerous, and there is tentative evidence that applied research would provide strong support for the theory itself, as well as real-world benefits related to activities in which attention is crucial, such as driving and education.Keywords Selective attention . Perception . Perceptual load . Load theory . Distraction . Visual attention Selective attention is the ability to focus on that which is important to the task at hand while ignoring or suppressing task-irrelevant information. A key question that has fuelled much debate and research in psychology is how, and crucially when, this irrelevant information is filtered out. For example, while reading this article the reader may be surrounded by many potential distractors, such as the noise of a fly buzzing around the room. Given the top-down goal of reading this article, how much information is available to you about the fly? Can the processing of irrelevant stimuli be reduced or even prevented by internal or external factors? The inability to ignore distractors is a common experience in daily life, and though it may at times have minor consequences, such as extending the length of time it takes to read an article, in other situations lapses of attention may have far more serious consequences (e.g., in healthcare situations, or while operating heavy machinery). Perceptual load theory (Lavie, 1995(Lavie, , 2005(Lavie, , 2010Lavie & Tsal, 1994) suggests that the success or failure of selective attention is dependent on the processing demands of the current task. That is, the level of perceptual load as well as any cognitive load will determine the efficiency of distractor rejection. This theory has been hugely influential over the last 20 years,

show abstract

“…This study also observed that the effect was stronger when the irrelevant singleton overlapped with the WM load but only when difficult to verbalize pictures were used. A study of Burnham et al (2014) explicitly tested the role of different WM components in attentional capture. They found that only tasks that tax visuospatial WM and executive control increased distracter interference, while a phonological WM load did not affect capture.…”

Section: Working Memory and Visual Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symbiosis of executive and selective attention in working memory

Vandierendonck

2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion of working memory (WM) was introduced to account for the usage of short-term memory resources by other cognitive tasks such as reasoning, mental arithmetic, language comprehension, and many others. This collaboration between memory and other cognitive tasks can only be achieved by a dedicated WM system that controls task coordination. To that end, WM models include executive control. Nevertheless, other attention control systems may be involved in coordination of memory and cognitive tasks calling on memory resources. The present paper briefly reviews the evidence concerning the role of selective attention in WM activities. A model is proposed in which selective attention control is directly linked to the executive control part of the WM system. The model assumes that apart from storage of declarative information, the system also includes an executive WM module that represents the current task set. Control processes are automatically triggered when particular conditions in these modules are met. As each task set represents the parameter settings and the actions needed to achieve the task goal, it will depend on the specific settings and actions whether selective attention control will have to be shared among the active tasks. Only when such sharing is required, task performance will be affected by the capacity limits of the control system involved.

show abstract

Components of working memory and visual selective attention.

Cited by 39 publications

References 57 publications

Heart Rate Variability During a Working Memory Task: Does Touching a Dog or Person Affect the Response?

Heart Rate Variability During a Working Memory Task: Does Touching a Dog or Person Affect the Response?

Twenty years of load theory—Where are we now, and where should we go next?

Symbiosis of executive and selective attention in working memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About