Massive Effects of Saliency on Information Processing in Visual Working Memory

Abstract

Given its severe capacity limitations, visual working memory (VWM) can process only a tiny fraction of the complex visual world. While selection of relevant information from cluttered scenes is a main topic of research on visual attention, it has not received much research efforts in the VWM community. Based on knowledge from visual-attention research, we develop a task that mimics the complexity of real-world scenes while maintaining tight experimental control over stimulation and allowing for the application of state-of-the-art computational models and neuroscientific techniques. In two experiments, we provide solid evidence that the distribution of a limited VWM resource is parametrically influenced by saliency (i.e., how much an object stands out from its immediate surround). Our third experiment demonstrates that – in contrast to the real world – saliency is virtually maxed out for relevant objects in typical laboratory studies of VWM, likely yielding a pronounced underestimation of this major influence on VWM. We discuss various, not necessarily exclusive, mechanisms by which saliency might influence VWM performance, including saliency-dependent distribution of resources, encoding efficiency and faster/better filtering of unnecessary information and relate our results to the Theory of Visual Attention (TVA).

No evidence that self-rated negative emotion boosts visual working memory precision.

“…In the study of Kensinger and Corkin (2003), conversely, processing of fearful faces in a 2-back working memory task was associated with slower responses compared to neutral faces, showing a detrimental effect of emotional processing for task performance (see also Bergmann, Rijpkema, Fernández, & Kessels, 2012;Brose, Schmiedek, Lövdén, & Lindenberger, 2012;Curby, Smith, Moerel, & Dyson, 2019). The effect of emotion in these conditions, however, could be due to the emotional stimuli having low-level properties that are more salient than the ones associated with the neutral stimuli (Constant & Liesefeld, 2020;Jingling & Zhaoping, 2008). This would indicate that emotion has an influence via changes in bottom-up processes that attract attention to these stimuli leading to their preferential processing at expense of other (neutral) stimuli.…”

Gotcha: Working memory prioritization from automatic attentional biases

“…Thus, prioritization via automatic mechanisms is often treated as a nuisance that interferes and competes with strategic attention for prioritizing the contents of WM. Information processing via automatic attentional mechanisms, however, likely accounts for a substantial portion of selection (Anderson, 2018;Constant & Liesefeld, 2020;Theeuwes, 2018). Furthermore, as stated above, there are many situations in which automatically attending to some information is important and should take priority in WM.…”

“…Information that is physically salient stands out in some way based on its perceptual attributes (Uddin, 2015). Physical salience can be due to differences in low-level features, such as brightness or contrast relative to surrounding stimuli (Constant & Liesefeld, 2020). Information can also be physically salient indirectly based on its location; for example, a sudden onset can imbue physical salience onto information that is subsequently presented at that location regardless of its features.…”

Memory precision for salient distractors decreases with learned suppression

“…Two recent studies, however, have shown a relationship between perceptual salience, attention, and awareness (Adams & Gaspelin, 2020;Constant & Liesefeld, 2020). Constant and Liesefeld (2020) used a parametric manipulation of salience and found a monotonic relationship between bottom-up saliency and the probability of memory for the item, although interestingly, the precision of the memory was not affected by saliency. Relatedly, Adams and Gaspelin (2019) found that participants were more likely to report awareness of a color singleton distractor from visual search trials with larger RT capture effects (Beloposky et al, 2008).…”

“…Although task-irrelevant, but salient, stimuli are more likely to capture attention, the relationship between involuntary attentional capture and subsequent attentional engagement, memory, and awareness is still debated (Zivony & Lamy, 2016. Two recent studies, however, have shown a relationship between perceptual salience, attention, and awareness (Adams & Gaspelin, 2020;Constant & Liesefeld, 2020). Constant and Liesefeld (2020) used a parametric manipulation of salience and found a monotonic relationship between bottom-up saliency and the probability of memory for the item, although interestingly, the precision of the memory was not affected by saliency.…”