Guidance of attention by information held in working memory

Abstract

Information held in working memory (WM) can guide attention during visual search. The authors of recent studies have interpreted the effect of holding verbal labels in WM as guidance of visual attention by semantic information. In a series of experiments, we tested how attention is influenced by visual features versus category-level information about complex objects held in WM. Participants either memorized an object’s image or its category. While holding this information in memory, they searched for a target in a four-object search display. On exact-match trials, the memorized item reappeared as a distractor in the search display. On category-match trials, another exemplar of the memorized item appeared as a distractor. On neutral trials, none of the distractors were related to the memorized object. We found attentional guidance in visual search on both exact-match and category-match trials in Experiment 1, in which the exemplars were visually similar. When we controlled for visual similarity among the exemplars by using four possible exemplars (Exp. 2) or by using two exemplars rated as being visually dissimilar (Exp. 3), we found attentional guidance only on exact-match trials when participants memorized the object’s image. The same pattern of results held when the target was invariant (Exps. 2–3) and when the target was defined semantically and varied in visual features (Exp. 4). The findings of these experiments suggest that attentional guidance by WM requires active visual information.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0428-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Automatic guidance of attention during real-world visual search

“…In particular, Calleja and Rich (2013) found WM-guided capture for distracters that belonged to the same category as an item stored in WM, but only as long as the WM item and the same-category distracter were visually similar. We posit that whether capture extends to semantic associates depends on the specificity of the attentional set that is encouraged by task demands.…”

“…We posit that whether capture extends to semantic associates depends on the specificity of the attentional set that is encouraged by task demands. In Calleja and Rich (2013), for instance, the WM item was always the image of a specific object. Even though participants performed a match-to-category task, the presentation of a specific image as the WM item may have interfered with the implementation of an abstract attentional set.…”

“…There was also some evidence that distracters that were semantically associated with the WM item captured attention. Other studies, however, found that capture by distracters that matched the WM item category was abolished, when visual similarity between the different exemplars was reduced (Calleja & Rich, 2013). In these experiments, both the WM item and the target stimulus tend to rely on similar representations, i.e.…”

Varying expectancies and attention bias in phobic and non-phobic individuals

“…For neutral items, engagement of attention in certain items presented in a search array has been shown to be modulated by both bottom-up factors, such as color or motion, and top-down factors manipulated via working memory or priming prior to the search (Wolfe et al, 2003; Burra and Kerzel, 2013; Calleja and Rich, 2013; Woodman et al, 2013). A potential origin of biases in attention to threatening material could be biological preparedness (e.g., Öhman et al, 2001).…”

Working memory-driven attention improves spatial resolution: Support for perceptual enhancement

“…matching stimuli in the visual field, even when there is no explicit intention for observers to voluntarily shift attention to those stimuli (e.g., Calleja & Rich, 2013;Carlisle & Woodman, 2011;Downing, 2000;Han, 2015a;Huang & Pashler, 2007;Olivers, Meijer, & Theeuwes, 2006;Pan, 2010;Soto, Heinke, Humphreys, & Blanco, 2005;. This memory-driven attentional capture cannot be attributable to the mechanism of bottom-up priming by stimulus repetition, as mere priming is usually not sufficient to guide attentional deployment (e.g., Olivers et al, 2006;Pan & Soto, 2010;Soto et al, 2005) and distinct neural mechanisms have been found for attentional biases by working memory and repetition priming (Soto, Humphreys, & Rotshtein, 2007;Soto, Llewelyn, & Silvanto, 2012).…”