The role of attention in item-item binding in visual working memory.

Abstract

An important yet unresolved question regarding visual working memory (VWM) relates to whether or not binding processes within VWM require additional attentional resources compared with processing solely the individual components comprising these bindings. Previous findings indicate that binding of surface features (e.g., colored shapes) within VWM is not demanding of resources beyond what is required for single features. However, it is possible that other types of binding, such as the binding of complex, distinct items (e.g., faces and scenes), in VWM may require additional resources. In 3 experiments, we examined VWM item-item binding performance under no load, articulatory suppression, and backward counting using a modified change detection task. Binding performance declined to a greater extent than single-item performance under higher compared with lower levels of concurrent load. The findings from each of these experiments indicate that processing item-item bindings within VWM requires a greater amount of attentional resources compared with single items. These findings also highlight an important distinction between the role of attention in item-item binding within VWM and previous studies of long-term memory (LTM) where declines in single-item and binding test performance are similar under divided attention. The current findings provide novel evidence that the specific type of binding is an important determining factor regarding whether or not VWM binding processes require attention. (PsycINFO Database Record

Differential age-related effects on conjunctive and relational visual short-term memory binding

“…Indeed, aging as well as concurrent load diminish equally short-term memory for single items and conjunctive bindings (Allen et al, , 2012Morey & Bieler, 2013), but had a larger detrimental effect on relational short-term binding than on single feature memory (Peterson & Naveh-Benjamin, 2017). Therefore, conjunctive short-term binding could be less affected by aging than relational short-term binding because older participants can more efficiently rely on automatic processes for the former.…”

“…This second factor refers to attention resources and relates to the fact that visual short-term tasks have been shown to be resource demanding and susceptible to interference Peterson & Naveh-Benjamin, 2017). Agerelated reduction in resources may partly contribute to visual short-term memory deficits.…”

“…Interestingly, it seems that relational short-term binding requires a greater amount of attentional resources than conjunctive short-term binding. Indeed, while short-term memory for individual features and for conjunctive bindings are equally affected by a concurrent task Allen, Hitch, Mate, & Baddeley, 2012;Morey & Bieler, 2013), concurrent load effects are larger for relational short-term binding compared to short-term memory for single features (e.g., face-scene binding, Peterson & Naveh-Benjamin, 2017). Moreover, a direct comparison of divided attention effects on conjunctive and relational short-term binding indicated that conjunctive binding is less affected by a concurrent task, and thus can be processed more automatically, than relational binding (van Geldorp et al, 2015).…”

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

“…some controversy (e.g., Allen, Baddeley, & Hitch, 2006;Allen, Hitch, & Baddeley, 2009;Z. Gao, Wu, Qiu, He, Yang, & Shen, 2017;Johnson, Hollingworth, & Luck, 2008;Peterson & Naveh-Benjamin, 2017;Shen, Huang, & Gao, 2015; for a review, see Allen, 2015). For example, one extensively debated issue is whether retaining bindings in WM requires more attention than the constituent single features (for reviews, see Allen, 2015;Schneegans & Bays, 2019).…”

Frequency Effects on Memory: A Resource-Limited Theory

“…The first claim above is shared by a number of other researchers (Blumenfeld, Parks, Yonelinas, & Ranganath, 2010;Geldorp, Parra, & Kessels, 2015;Peterson & Naveh-Benjamin, 2017); however, to our knowledge it has not been implemented before into a mechanistic (i.e., computer implemented) model of memory. In contrast, the remaining claims about how stimulus familiarity affects WM resources are unique to our proposal (also see Reder et al, 2007).…”