Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: Visual working memory content affects visual attention.

Abstract

In 7 experiments, the authors explored whether visual attention (the ability to select relevant visual information) and visual working memory (the ability to retain relevant visual information) share the same content representations. The presence of singleton distractors interfered more strongly with a visual search task when it was accompanied by an additional memory task. Singleton distractors interfered even more when they were identical or related to the object held in memory, but only when it was difficult to verbalize the memory content. Furthermore, this content-specific interaction occurred for features that were relevant to the memory task but not for irrelevant features of the same object or for once-remembered objects that could be forgotten. Finally, memory-related distractors attracted more eye movements but did not result in longer fixations. The results demonstrate memory-driven attentional capture on the basis of content-specific representations.

Automaticity and cognitive control in the learned predictiveness effect.

“…Thus, targets and distractors are in a state of mutual inhibition until the system can resolve the point at which processing resources should be preferentially allocated. There is now much evidence showing that task set establishes a strong top-down bias influencing the outcome of this process (Chelazzi, Duncan, Miller, & Desimone, 1998;Downing, 2000;Han & Kim, 2009;Olivers, Meijer, & Theeuwes, 2006;Woodman & Luck, 2007). Thus, it may be that the top-down attentional set directed towards colour targets is sufficient to counteract any advantage that learnt biases might contribute towards competitive interactions.…”

Attention to future actions: the influence of instructed S-R versus S-S mappings on attentional control

“…It is, however, interesting to note that our results seem to clash with this literature. The fact that the memory task we used in Experiment 2 did not affect attentional bias seems in contrast with the finding that merely holding an item in working memory for a subsequent memory test (e.g., Olivers et al, 2006;Soto & Humphreys, 2007) can modulate attention. However, it must be noted that our design differs from the previous studies in two important ways.…”

“…For instance, in Folk et al's study, participants experienced targets and distractors during large numbers of trials, leading some to suggest that these effects are due to participants' selection history instead of participants' future plans (Belopolsky, Schreij, & Theeuwes, 2010; see also Awh et al, 2012). Similarly, participants in the visual search tasks (e.g., Olivers et al, 2006;Soto et al, 2006;Soto & Humphreys, 2007) had experience in both attending to the to-be-remembered color and in performing the memory task. In Downing's study (2000), the to-be-remembered stimuli were novel in each trial, but still participants had ample of time to study these stimuli before the beginning of the trial.…”

“…In visual search tasks, reactions are faster when targets are presented within a to-be-remembered stimulus (e.g., Dowd & Mitroff, 2013;Soto, Humphreys, & Heinke, 2006) and slower when the to-be-remembered stimulus is presented as a distractor (e.g., Soto & Humphreys, 2007;Soto, Humphreys, & Heinke, 2006) or as a singleton distractor (e.g., Olivers, Meijer, & Theeuwes, 2006, but for some critical notes, see Downing &Dodds, 2004 andWoodman &Luck, 2007). Similarly, when a to-be-remembered item is used as a cue in a visual probe tasks (e.g., Downing, 2000;Schwark, Dolgov, Sandry, & Volkman, 2013) reaction 4 times are faster when a target is presented at the same location of a to-be-remembered cue than when it is presented at the opposite location.…”

Working memory effects in speeded RSVP tasks

“…Akyürek et al, 2011;Nieuwenstein et al, 2007), but also in other attentional tasks (Gil-Gómez de Liaño, Umilta, Stablum, Tebaldi, & Cantagallo, 2010;Gil-Gómez de Liaño, Botella, & Pascual-Ezama, 2011;Kim, Kim, & Chun, 2005;Olivers, 2009). According to results found in visual search and attentional capture studies, items in WM enhance selection of matching items when they are targets in the attentional task (Desimone & Duncan, 1995;Downing, 2000;Olivers, Meijer, & Theeuwes, 2006;Soto, Heinke, Humphreys, & Blanco, 2005). However, WM enhancement of attention does not always occur.…”