Just-in-Time Encoding Into Visual Working Memory Is Contingent Upon Constant Availability of External Information

Abstract

Humans maintain an intricate balance between storing information in visual working memory (VWM) and just-in-time sampling of the external world, rooted in a trade-off between the cost of maintaining items in VWM versus retrieving information as it is needed. Previous studies have consistently shown that one prerequisite of just-in-time sampling is a high degree of availability of external information, and that introducing a delay before being able to access information led participants to rely less on the external world and more on VWM. However, these studies manipulated availability in such a manner that the cost of sampling was stable and predictable. It is yet unclear whether participants become less reliant on external information when it is more difficult to factor in the cost of sampling that information. In two experiments, participants copied an example layout from the left to the right side of the screen. In Experiment 1, intermittent occlusion of the example layout led participants to attempt to encode more items per inspection than when the layout was constantly available, but this did not consistently result in more correct placements. However, these findings could potentially be explained by inherent differences in how long the example layout could be viewed. Therefore in Experiment 2, the example layout only became available after a gaze-contingent delay, which could be constant or variable. Here, the introduction of any delay led to increased VWM load compared to no delay, although the degree of variability in the delay did not alter behaviour. These results reaffirm that the nature of when we engage VWM is dynamical, and suggest that any disruption to the continuous availability of external information is the main driver of increased VWM usage relative to whether availability is predictable or not.

Sensory Input Matching Visual Working Memory Guides Internal Prioritization

“…While previous studies demonstrate a robust link between external availability and VWM encoding, the to-be-memorized material was highly stable in most tasks (Draschkow et al, 2021; Grinschgl et al, 2021; Hoogerbrugge et al, 2023; Koevoet, Naber, et al, 2023; Melnik et al, 2018; Meyerhoff et al, 2021; Sahakian et al, 2023a, 2023b; Somai et al, 2020) (but see Aivar et al, 2005; Hoogerbrugge et al, 2024; L. Xu et al, 2023). This contrasts many situations in everyday life in which the world is highly dynamic as items can appear, disappear and reappear from the visual field within a matter of seconds (Nobre & van Ede, 2023).…”

“…Gunseli et al, 2015; van Ede et al, 2020), and studies demonstrating the relationship between external availability and VWM use (e.g. Hoogerbrugge et al, 2024; Hoogerbrugge et al, 2023; Koevoet, Naber, et al, 2023; Somai et al, 2020). Participants reported no history of attention-deficit related disorders or autism spectrum disorder.…”

“…Ballard et al, 1995; Böing et al, 2023; Draschkow et al, 2021; Hoogerbrugge et al, 2023; Kvitelashvili & Kessler, 2024; Somai et al, 2020) – or sometimes not at all (Chota et al, 2023). Instead, participants often prefer to resample to-be-memorized material and only encode one or two items at a time (Aivar et al, 2005; Ballard et al, 1995; Böing et al, 2023; Chota et al, 2023; Draschkow et al, 2021; Droll & Hayhoe, 2007; Grinschgl et al, 2021; Hoogerbrugge et al, 2024; Hooger-brugge et al, 2023; Koevoet, Naber, et al, 2023; Kvitelashvili & Kessler, 2024; Melnik et al, 2018; Meyerhoff et al, 2021; O’Regan, 1992; Risko & Gilbert, 2016; Sahakian et al, 2023a, 2023b; Somai et al, 2020; Van der Stigchel, 2020; L. Xu et al, 2023). Put differently, participants typically prefer to simply look at externally available items over storing them in VWM, likely because this is less effortful (Risko & Gilbert, 2016; Van der Stigchel, 2020) (although sampling also has a cost, see Koevoet, Strauch, Naber, et al, 2023; Koevoet et al, 2024).…”