Effects of salience are long-lived and stubborn

Constant, Martin; Liesefeld, Heinrich René

doi:10.31234/osf.io/9qypv

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The exploratory ANOVA showed a slightly weaker effect of salience for validly cued stimuli, which might be explained by a ceiling effect. Indeed, the recall error for the 45°v alid pre-cue condition was 22.44°± 3.67, which is comparable to the best performance observed in Experiment 1 of Constant and Liesefeld (2023) at 2000 ms of encoding time (24.11°± 2.73). Thus, there was less room for improvement between 28°and 45°in the valid cue condition.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

“…The feature pre-cues of Experiment 2 allowed us to demonstrate that, as expected, boosting the goal-relevance of a target enhanced its recall precision (Bays et al, 2011;Constant & Liesefeld, 2023;Dube & Al-Aidroos, 2019;Dube et al, 2017;Emrich et al, 2017;Yoo et al, 2018;Zokaei et al, 2011). However, again, this didn't impact the effect of salience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…It has previously been demonstrated that effects of salience on VWM are robust to top-down and selection history effects (Constant & Liesefeld, 2023). However, this observed robustness could have been related to the fact that the manipulations in Constant and Liesefeld (2023) were performed across trials. In other words, it could be that these were not trial-specific enough to counteract the trial-specific salience effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Observers can willfully prioritize certain objects, features, or locations according to their current objectives while ignoring salience. For instance, the less salient stimuli in Constant and Liesefeld (2023) were probed more often and therefore had a higher top-down priority. However, the bottom-up effects of salience were hard to overrule, even at long encoding times.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Persistent effects of salience in visual working memory: Limits of cue-driven guidance

Constant,

Kerzel

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual working memory (VWM) is a core cognitive system enabling us to select and briefly store relevant visual information. We recently observed that more salient items were recalled more precisely from VWM and demonstrated that these effects of salience were quite resilient against manipulations of reward, probability, and selection history. Here, we investigated whether and how salience interacts with shifts of attention induced by pre- and retro-cueing. Across four experiments, we consistently found effects of salience on the precision of VWM. Spatial and feature cues presented before the memory display improved precision when they validly indicated the target but failed to modulate the salience effect. Feature retro-cues with moderate validity did not improve precision. However, effects on precision emerged when the validity of the retro-cue was increased and a spatial component was added. Overall, there was little interaction between cueing effects and target salience. This suggests that salience plays a critical role in how items are initially encoded into VWM and that once representations are formed, their relative priority based on salience appears difficult to fully override via top-down mechanisms. These findings highlight bottom-up and top-down processes in the interplay of visual attention and working memory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Persistent effects of salience in visual working memory: Limits of cue-driven guidance

Constant,

Kerzel

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different forms of guidance persist differently over time. For example, goal-directed feature guidance can direct attention to many successive stimuli matching the search-guiding template (→ Templates and Strategies), while bottom-up salience may fade dramatically after the first moments of a search (Donk & van Zoest, 2008; but see Constant & Liesefeld, 2022).…”

Section: Guidancementioning

confidence: 99%

Terms of debate: Consensus definitions to guide the scientific discourse on visual distraction

Liesefeld¹,

Lamy²,

Gaspelin³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hypothesis-driven research rests on clearly articulated scientific theories. The building blocks for communicating these theories are scientific terms. Obviously, communication – and thus, scientific progress – is hampered if the meaning of these terms varies idiosyncratically across (sub)fields and even across individual researchers within the same subfield. We have formed an international group of experts representing various theoretical stances with the goal to homogenize the use of the terms that are most relevant to the field of visual distraction in visual search. Our discussions revealed striking heterogeneity and we had to invest much time and effort to increase our mutual understanding of each other’s use of central terms, which turned out to be strongly related to our respective theoretical positions. We present the outcomes of these discussions in a glossary and provide some context in several essays. Specifically, we explicate how central terms are used in the distraction literature and consensually sharpen their definitions in order to enable communication across theoretical standpoints. Where applicable, we also explain how the respective constructs can be measured. We believe that this novel type of adversarial collaboration can serve as a model for other fields of psychological research that strive to build a solid groundwork for theorizing and communicating by establishing a common language. For the field of visual distraction, the present paper should facilitate communication across theoretical standpoints and may serve as an introduction and reference text for newcomers.

show abstract

The interaction of top–down and bottom–up attention in visual working memory

Zheng,

Sun,

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the interplay between top–down and bottom–up attention in visual working memory (VWM) is crucial, although the specific challenges arising from this interaction remain ambiguous. In this study, we address this complexity by examining how cue informativeness and probe status of the salient items influence this interaction. Through three experiments, we manipulated top–down attention by varying probe frequencies using pre-cues and bottom–up attention by varying the visual salience of memory items. Experiment 1 explored cue informativeness at 100% and 50%, while Experiments 2 and 3 maintained cue informativeness at 80% and 50%. Additionally, Experiment 1 tested a few of the salient items, Experiment 2 excluded them, and Experiment 3 tested half of them in each cue condition. Across all experiments, we consistently observed cueing benefits for cue-directed items, albeit with costs to non-cued items. Furthermore, cue informativeness and the probe status of salient items emerged as critical factors influencing the interaction between top–down and bottom–up attention in VWM. These findings underscore the pivotal roles of cue informativeness and salient item relevance in shaping the dynamics of top–down and bottom–up attention within VWM.

show abstract

Effects of salience are long-lived and stubborn

Cited by 4 publications

References 48 publications

Persistent effects of salience in visual working memory: Limits of cue-driven guidance

Persistent effects of salience in visual working memory: Limits of cue-driven guidance

Terms of debate: Consensus definitions to guide the scientific discourse on visual distraction

The interaction of top–down and bottom–up attention in visual working memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About