Object-based attention in retaining binding in working memory: Influence of activation states of working memory

Abstract

It has been suggested that retaining bindings in working memory (WM) requires more object-based attention than retaining constituent features. Recent studies have found that when memorized stimuli are presented sequentially, the most recent stimulus is in a highly accessible privileged state such that it is retained in a relatively automatic and resource-free manner, whereas the other stimuli are in a non-privileged state. The current study investigated whether the activation states of WM modulate the role of object-based attention in retaining bindings in WM. To address this question, we presented three colored shapes sequentially and added a transparent-motion task (Experiment 1) or a mental rotation task (Experiment 2) into the WM maintenance phase to consume object-based attention. We consistently found that consuming object-based attention led to a larger impairment to bindings relative to constituent features, which is independent of the WM activation states, suggesting that object-based attention is critical in retaining bindings in WM across activation states of WM.

The role of attention in retaining the binding of integral features in working memory

“…Z. Gao et al, 2017;He et al, 2020;Shen et al, 2015), we argue that object-based attention was the only feasible interpretation for the observed findings, and the manipulation of object-based attention in our study was effective.…”

“…Corroborating this view, as with Duncan's object-feature report (Z. Gao et al, 2017;He et al, 2020;Shen et al, 2015), a secondary one-surface transparent motion task led to a selective binding impairment (Shen et al, 2015).…”

“…Shen, Huang, & Gao, 2015) to test the object-based attention hypothesis of binding. In line with Shen et al (2015), the current study and that by He et al (2020) used a transparent motion task and mental rotation task to tax object-based attention. Each secondary task on its own might allow other interpretations.…”

“…Moreover, behavioral (Hyun & Luck, 2007) and event-related potential (Prime & Jolicoeur, 2010) studies have found that object WM instead of spatial WM is the substrate for mentally rotating a letter. Considering that object-based attention, instead of spatial-based attention, plays a critical role in retaining object in visual WM (Barnes, Nelson, & Reuter-Lorenz, 2001;Matsukura & Vecera, 2009;Matsukura & Vecera, 2011;Woodman & Vecera, 2011), and visual WM is conceived as visual attention sustained internally over time (Chun, 2011;Chun, Golomb, & Turk-Browne, 2011;Kiyonaga & Egner, 2013), we argue that mentally rotating a letter consumes object-based attention (for a similar claim, see Jansen, & Lehmann, 2013) in WM (see experiments 1 to 3 in He et al, 2020;Shen et al, 2015). Supporting this view, we previously used a mental rotation task to consume object-based attention in exploring the binding mechanism of separable features (see experiments 1 to 3 in Shen et al, 2015).…”

“…Ample studies on perception have found that the involvement of attention was essential to having an integrated perceptual representation (e.g., Treisman & Gelade, 1980;Treisman & Schmidt, 1982;Wolfe & Robertson, 2012). However, the role of attention in retaining feature bindings in working memory (WM), a post-perceptual buffer in charge of storing and manipulating a limited set of information (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974;Cowan, 2001), is still the subject of Citation: Wan, X., Zhou, Y., Wu, F., He, K., Shen, M., & Gao, Z. (2020).…”