Gestalt grouping cues can improve filtering performance in visual working memory

Allon, Ayala S.; Vixman, Gili; Luria, Roy

doi:10.1007/s00426-018-1032-5

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We did not find consistent correlations between K and estimates of filtering using the EEG neural markers, and therefore we do not further report this measure. The mean visual WM capacity of participants in the current study was low relative to the mean capacity estimates in previous studies from our lab ( M = 2.69, SD = 0.72 in Allon & Luria, ; M = 2.76, SD = 0.82 in Allon, Vixman, & Luria, ; M = 2.70, SD = 0.81 in Vaskevich & Luria, ), suggesting that the current group of participants was relatively a low‐capacity group.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 90%

Filtering performance in visual working memory is improved by reducing early spatial attention to the distractors

Allon

Luria

2019

Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the underlying processes that enable improving filtering irrelevant items from entering visual working memory (WM). To this end, participants performed a bilateral change‐detection task in which either targets or targets along with distractors (i.e., the filtering condition) appeared in the memory array while ERPs were recorded. In the cue‐present condition, we provided a spatial cue coupled with a temporal cue regarding where and when the distractors would appear. On some of the filtering trials, after the offset of the memory array, task‐irrelevant probes were briefly flashed either at the locations of the targets or at the locations of the distractors. This enabled measuring whether reactivating the filtering settings resulted in reducing spatial attentional resources to the distractors, allocating additional spatial attentional resources to the targets, or both, as was measured by the P1/N1 amplitude. Results revealed that, relative to the cue‐absent condition, in the cue‐present condition the P1/N1 amplitude was reduced for probes at the distractors and was similar for probes at the targets. In addition, the reduction in the P1/N1 amplitude was accompanied by a reduced filtering cost in accuracy performance in the cue‐present condition relative to the cue‐absent condition. These findings suggest that reactivating the distractor filtering settings improved filtering performance in visual WM by reducing the allocation of spatial attention to the distractors already at early processing stages, and not by allocating additional spatial attentional resources to the targets.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 90%

Filtering performance in visual working memory is improved by reducing early spatial attention to the distractors

Allon

Luria

2019

Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Note that here, too, central features are retained and peripheral/ incidental features are omitted when moving to the more abstract category.) Recent studies have shown that grouping distractors together assists in filtering them out (Allon, Vixman, & Luria, 2018). Possibly, a concrete mindset made participants view the distractors as distinct exemplars (e.g., a red packman with an upward-pointing mouth, a pink packman with a right-pointing mouth), whereas an abstract mindset made them group distractors together into a more abstract category (e.g., pacmans), which helped filtering them out.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concrete mindset impairs filtering in visual working memory

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies tested whether a mindset manipulation would affect the filtering of distractors from entering visual working memory (VWM). In Study 1, participants completed a concrete mindset manipulation (by repeatedly describing how to perform an action), an abstract mindset manipulation (by repeatedly describing why to perform an action), and a baseline condition (no manipulation). In Study 2, some participants completed a concrete mindset manipulation, whereas others completed an abstract manipulation. Filtering efficiency was estimated by a change-detection task that included a condition with distractors alongside targets. We derived our prediction from construal-level theory (CLT), according to which concrete representations retain information regardless of its relevance, whereas abstract representations retain the relevant and omit the irrelevant elements of an input array. In a task that requires attending to task-relevant targets and ignoring task-irrelevant distractors in a visual array, concrete processing should impair performance relative to abstract processing. We therefore predicted that a concrete mindset would reduce filtering efficiency as compared to an abstract mindset. Consistent with our hypothesis, we found that a concrete mindset manipulation reduced filtering efficiency, as compared to both an abstract mindset manipulation (Studies 1 and 2) and the baseline condition (Study 1). These results suggest a new factor that may contribute to both individual differences and situational variation in working memory performance.

show abstract

“…Although the specific term “emergent engram” does not appear in major databases (e.g., PubMed and PsychINFO), its general idea is prevalent throughout contemporary memory research. Indeed, it is prominent throughout cognitive psychology, e.g., in the writings of Endel Tulving with the emergence of multiple memory systems (Tulving, 1987 ; Nyberg et al, 1998 ) among others in the Gestalt tradition (Kałamała et al, 2017 ; Allon et al, 2018 ). In addition, it has more contemporary relevance to other recent work in behavioral neuroscience (Sara and Hars, 2006 ; Sara, 2017 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%