工作记忆与知觉负载对工作记忆表征引导注意的调节

本研究采用4个眼动实验探讨不同知觉负载条件下的视觉搜索任务中工作记忆负载对基于工作记忆表征的注意引导效应的影响。实验1和实验3采用低知觉负载的视觉搜索任务,结果在视觉工作记忆负载为1和2时观察到了显著的注意引导效应,但当负载增加到4时注意引导效应消失了;实验2和实验4采用高知觉负载的视觉搜索任务,结果发现注意引导效应在工作记忆负载增加到2时就已经消失了。上述结果表明:工作记忆负载和知觉负载都能够通过调控认知资源的方式来影响工作记忆表征对注意的引导,当认知资源充足时,工作记忆能够同时保持多个记忆表征对视觉注意的引导。     

知觉负载、注意定势与选择性注意

本研究采用Eriksen Flanker（侧抑制）范式,将当前任务区分为高、低知觉负载两种条件．并系统操纵边缘视野干扰项与中央靶子的不同加工层次关系,从而考察注意选择的知觉负载理论。实验一发现,高知觉负载情况下没有任何flanker冲突效应,而低知觉负载情况下既有知觉层次和反应层次的冲突效应,也有一致条件下的促进效应。实验二增加了一致条件试次的比例,从而操纵自上而下的注意定势,发现高、低知觉负载情况下都存在知觉冲突效应和一致条件下的促进效应。这些发现表明,对任务无关信息的加工既受到任务相关信息的知觉负载和剩余加工资源的分配的影响,也受到自上而下注意定势的影响;自下而上和自上而下过程相互作用,共同决定加工资源的分配和注意选择的认知阶段。     

知觉负载和线索位置对视觉选择性注意的影响

采用线索范式,以汉语双字词为材料,探讨了不同工作记忆负荷条件下知觉负载、线索位置对视觉选择性注意的影响.结果表明:(1)线索位置影响被试对目标的加工,前线索条件下被试对目标的加工更为精细;(2)知觉负载对选择性注意的影响受到工作记忆的调节.高工作记忆负荷条件下,高知觉负载条件下的反应时显著短于低知觉负载条件;而在低工作记忆负荷条件下,不同知觉负载条件下的反应时差异不显著.     

工作记忆表征引导视觉注意选择的眼动研究

工作记忆表征能否引导视觉注意选择？目前实验结果尚不一致。有研究者认为能否观察到注意引导效应取决于视觉搜索类型。研究采用工作记忆任务与视觉搜索任务相结合的双任务范式, 结合眼动追踪技术, 对不同视觉搜索类型下的注意引导效应进行验证。实验1结果发现, 不管视觉搜索任务的靶子是否变化, 在早期的眼动指标上都发现了显著的注意引导效应, 但注意引导效应在靶子固定的视觉搜索任务下表现得更强。实验2在平衡两种视觉搜索任务中的工作记忆负载后发现, 两种视觉搜索任务下都出现了显著的注意引导效应, 但没有发现实验1中所出现的任务间差异。实验结果否定了视觉搜索类型对注意引导效应的决定性影响, 同时也提示工作记忆负载可能在注意引导效应中起重要作用。     

视觉工作记忆对前注意阶段注意定向的调节

在注意阶段,视觉工作记忆与注意共享某些特征时,视觉工作记忆内容会引导注意定向。在前注意阶段的影响又是如何？对此问题的研究却很少见,本研究采用工作记忆与基于特征的视觉搜索相结合的任务深入探讨了此问题。研究结果发现：即使在前注意阶段,注意定向也会受到视觉工作记忆自上而下的调节。然而与注意阶段不同的是：当视觉工作记忆内容与随后视觉搜索任务的目标相关时,与记忆内容匹配的搜索项目会引导注意定向到该项目所在的位置,但只有此项目作为分心物时,才会明显地延迟对靶子的加工,而此项目作为靶子时,这种影响并不明显;当视觉工作记忆中保持的项目与随后视觉搜索任务的目标无关时,注意会忽略视觉工作记忆中保持的项目,有效地检测靶子     

注意捕获效应受知觉负载及目标与干扰项距离的共同影响

研究考察了无关干扰项引发的注意捕获效应如何受到任务知觉负载以及目标与干扰项距离的共同影响。被试在视觉搜索集中搜索目标并做辨别反应。通过控制搜索集的大小来控制任务知觉负载, 同时在搜索集中存在一个用颜色标定的无关干扰项(奇异项), 该奇异项与当前的搜索目标存在一致、中性或不一致的关系, 该奇异项的位置与当前目标相邻或相距较远。结果发现, 被试在低负载条件下出现显著的干扰效应(不一致条件的反应时减中性条件的反应时), 而在高负载条件下干扰效应减小。此外, 在高负载条件下, 当目标与干扰项相距较近时没有出现干扰效应, 而当目标与干扰项相距较远时存在显著的干扰效应。干扰效应受到任务知觉负载和目标与无关干扰项距离的共同影响。这些结果说明, 与任务无关的刺激是否捕获注意取决于当前任务总体上是否存在可用的剩余注意资源, 也受到其周围临近区域的局部注意资源是否充足的影响。     

视觉工作记忆对注意选择的自动导向作用

对Downing(2000)的实验范式加以改进使得实验设计完全符合检验记忆驱动注意捕获所需要满足的标准,实验一采用要求被试在工作记忆保持阶段完成探测区分任务的双任务范式,结果发现被试对呈现在匹配物体空间位置上的探测项反应时显著快于对呈现在非匹配物体空间位置上的探测项反应时,而在实验二中当对被试没有记忆要求时却没有发现这种空间位置一致的优势效应,说明视觉工作记忆内容对选择性注意产生了自动导向作用。     

言语工作记忆内容在语义水平的注意捕获

采用工作记忆−视觉搜索双任务范式, 探讨不同呈现方式下与言语工作记忆内容语义水平匹配的刺激的注意捕获效应。结果发现：(1)视觉呈现下, 与言语工作记忆内容知觉和语义匹配的刺激均能捕获注意, 且在视觉搜索快速反应的阶段仍能捕获注意; (2)听觉呈现下, 与言语工作记忆内容语义匹配的刺激不能捕获注意, 反而被抑制, 但在视觉搜索快速反应的早期阶段却能捕获注意。研究表明, 基于视听呈现的言语工作记忆内容在语义水平对注意的引导作用可发生在注意搜索过程快速反应的早期阶段。而晚期阶段由于受到跨通道注意选择的抑制, 听觉呈现下的语义表征不能捕获注意, 而视觉呈现下的语义表征仍能捕获注意。     

视觉与言语工作记忆表征对视觉注意的引导

通过三个实验,探讨不同时间进程下视觉和言语工作记忆表征对视觉注意的引导。实验1采用注意引导与注意探测任务同时呈现的范式,探讨不同记忆项与注意项时间间隔(SOA)条件下言语工作记忆表征对视觉注意的引导。结果发现,当SOA较短时言语工作记忆表征对视觉注意有引导效应,而SOA较长时未观察到引导效应;实验2、3采用注意引导任务与注意探测任务分离范式,分别探讨在不同SOA条件下言语和视觉工作记忆表征对视觉注意的引导。结果发现,不同SOA条件下言语和视觉工作记忆表征均能引导视觉注意。研究表明,不同实验范式对言语工作记忆表征对视觉注意的引导有明显影响,视觉比言语工作记忆表征能在更广泛条件下引导视觉注意。     

从知觉负载理论来理解选择性注意

知觉负载理论被认为解决了选择性注意研究的早选择和晚选择观点之争。当前任务对注意资源的耗用程度决定了与任务无关的干扰刺激得到多少加工,从而导致在低知觉负载下,注意资源自动溢出去加工干扰刺激（晚选择）,而在高知觉负载下,注意资源被当前任务耗尽而无法加工干扰刺激（早选择）。知觉负载理论提出后,研究者进行了一系列研究。一部分工作专注于知觉负载对选择性注意的调节作用;另外一些工作则关注其他认知过程如何影响注意资源的分配,其中知觉负载与工作记忆负载的关系是当前关注重点。     

视觉工作记忆回溯线索效应的产生机制：认知阶段分离

以往研究关于视觉工作记忆回溯线索效应的产生机制主要存在5种假设, 目前依然存在争议。本研究通过改进前人研究实验范式, 采用包含内源性回溯线索的颜色回忆报告范式, 进一步对这5种假设进行检验。在实验1中, 我们调控了线索与探测阵列之间的时间间隔, 发现不同时间间隔不影响无线索条件的行为表现, 而在正常线索条件中被试的记忆精度以及能记住的项目数量均优于无线索条件; 在实验2中, 我们对回溯线索伴随的干扰刺激类型进行控制, 结果显示, 在不同条件下记忆精度不存在差别, 但当回溯线索伴随干扰刺激呈现时, 被试能记住的项目数量会被降低, 降低程度受干扰刺激的类型调制; 在实验3中, 我们对伴随回溯线索的干扰刺激的呈现时间进行控制, 发现虽然回溯线索效应仍然存在, 但干扰刺激的呈现时间不会影响效应程度。研究结果表明, 回溯线索的出现使得被试能够在决策加工前完成内部注意资源的再分配, 从而避免了同时进行这两种认知加工与记忆表征维持本身竞争认知资源。本研究为认知阶段分离假设提供了支持证据, 对解决回溯线索效应产生机制的争议以及理解内部注意与视觉工作记忆的关系有重要意义。     

空间距离对视觉工作记忆巩固的影响

以往研究发现,个体对不同类型的视觉信息进行视觉工作记忆巩固的模式存在差异,如对于方向信息,一次只能有一个项目被巩固进入视觉工作记忆系统,而对于颜色信息,个体则可以一次巩固两个项目进入视觉工作记忆系统。但对于视觉信息的巩固模式是否会受其他因素的影响,目前仍然没有明确的定论。本研究将探讨视觉信息的巩固模式是否可能受到记忆项目空间距离因素的影响。研究采用变化觉察范式、序列-同时呈现操作及控制记忆项目呈现间距的方法,通过3个实验考察记忆项目之间的空间距离是否能够影响个体对颜色信息和方向信息的巩固模式。在三种空间距离水平上序列呈现或同时呈现两个记忆项目,实验结果一致发现记忆项目之间的空间距离会对视觉工作记忆巩固模式产生明显影响,个体在同时呈现条件下的正确率会随着空间距离的增大而降低。这些结果表明对同一类视觉信息进行巩固的过程中所存在的项目数量限制并不是固定的,个体可以采用序列模式或有限容量的并行模式对同一类信息进行巩固,巩固的模式可能与视觉空间注意的分配以及视觉信息所能获得的注意资源有关。     

Role of working memory load on selective attention to affectively valent information

Empirical evidence obtained with neutral stimuli has shown that selective attention relies on working memory functions as distractor processing occurs under conditions of high but not of low working memory load. We investigated whether these findings also hold for affectively valent distractors. In three experiments, participants completed the original Flanker task with famous people (Exps 1 and 2) and an affective Flanker task (Exp. 3) in which positive and negative words were presented superimposed onto happy, angry, and neutral faces under conditions of high or low working memory load. In line with past findings, results showed greater interference effects due to processing of distractors showing known people under high working memory load. In contrast interference effects due to processing of valent distractors occurred regardless of working memory load. The present findings are in contrast with those reported with neutral stimuli as they indicate that automatic evaluation of incoming affectively valent information occurs regardless of task priorities and of working memory load.     

Dual-task interference in visual working memory: A limitation in storage capacity but not in encoding or retrieval

The concurrent maintenance of two visual working memory (VWM) arrays can lead to profound interference. It is unclear, however, whether these costs arise from limitations in VWM storage capacity (Fougnie & Maro is, 2006) or from interference between the storage of one visual array and encoding or retrieval of another visual array (Cowan & Morey, 2007). Here, we show that encoding a VWM array does not interfere with maintenance of another VWM array unless the two displays exceed maintenance capacity (Experiments 1 and 2). Moreover, manipulating the extent to which encoding and maintenance can interfere with one another had no discernable effect on dual-task performance (Experiment 2). Finally, maintenance of a VWM array was not affected by retrieval of information from another VWM array (Experiment 3). Taken together, these findings demonstrate that dual-task interference between two concurrent VWM tasks is due to a capacity-limited store that is independent from encoding and retrieval processes.     

Working memory load and distraction: dissociable effects of visual maintenance and cognitive control

We establish a new dissociation between the roles of working memory (WM) cognitive control and visual maintenance in selective attention as measured by the efficiency of distractor rejection. The extent to which focused selective attention can prevent distraction has been shown to critically depend on the level and type of load involved in the task. High perceptual load that consumes perceptual capacity leads to reduced distractor processing, whereas high WM load that reduces WM ability to exert priority-based executive cognitive control over the task results in increased distractor processing (e.g., Lavie, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 75–82, 2005). WM also serves to maintain task-relevant visual representations, and such visual maintenance is known to recruit the same sensory cortices as those involved in perception (e.g., Pasternak & Greenlee, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(2), 97–107, 2005). These findings led us to hypothesize that loading WM with visual maintenance would reduce visual capacity involved in perception, thus resulting in reduced distractor processing—similar to perceptual load and opposite to WM cognitive control load. Distractor processing was assessed in a response competition task, presented during the memory interval (or during encoding; Experiment 1a) of a WM task. Loading visual maintenance or encoding by increased set size for a memory sample of shapes, colors, and locations led to reduced distractor response competition effects. In contrast, loading WM cognitive control with verbal rehearsal of a random letter set led to increased distractor effects. These findings confirm load theory predictions and provide a novel functional distinction between the roles of WM maintenance and cognitive control in selective attention.     

Selective working memory disables inhibition of visual features

Recent research suggests that information held in working memory can facilitate subsequent attentional processing. Here, we explore the negative corollary of this conception: Under which circumstances does information in working memory disrupt subsequent processing? Seventy participants performed visual discriminations in a dual-task paradigm. They were asked to judge colors or shapes in an online attention task under three different working-memory conditions: Same, Switch, or Unknown. In the Same condition, participants selectively maintained one visual feature in working memory, from the same dimension as in the online attention task. In the Switch condition, participants selectively maintained one visual feature in working memory, but had to focus on another visual dimension in the online attention task. In the Unknown condition, participants could not predict which visual feature would be relevant for the working-memory task. We found that irrelevant features in the online attention task were particularly difficult to ignore in the Switch condition, that is, when the irrelevant features belong to a visual dimension that is simultaneously prioritized in selective working memory. The findings are consistent with accounts in terms of neural overlap between working-memory and attention circuits, and suggest that mechanisms of selection, rather than resource limitations, critically determine the extent of visual interference.     

Are multiple visual short-term memory storages necessary to explain the retro-cue effect?

Recent research has shown that change detection performance is enhanced when, during the retention interval, attention is cued to the location of the upcoming test item. This retro-cue advantage has led some researchers to suggest that visual short-term memory (VSTM) is divided into a durable, limited-capacity storage and a more fragile, high-capacity storage. Consequently, performance is poor on the no-cue trials because fragile VSTM is overwritten by the test display and only durable VSTM is accessible under these conditions. In contrast, performance is improved in the retro-cue condition because attention keeps fragile VSTM accessible. The aim of the present study was to test the assumptions underlying this two-storage account. Participants were asked to encode an array of colors for a change detection task involving no-cue and retro-cue trials. A retro-cue advantage was found even when the cue was presented after a visual (Experiment 1) or a central (Experiment 2) interference. Furthermore, the magnitude of the interference was comparable between the no-cue and retro-cue trials. These data undermine the main empirical support for the two-storage account and suggest that the presence of a retro-cue benefit cannot be used to differentiate between different VSTM storages.     

Orienting attention in visual working memory reduces interference from memory probes

Given a changing visual environment, and the limited capacity of visual working memory (VWM), the contents of VWM must be in constant flux. Using a change detection task, the authors show that VWM is subject to obligatory updating in the face of new information. Change detection performance is enhanced when the item that may change is retrospectively cued 1 s after memory encoding and 0.5 s before testing. The retro-cue benefit cannot be explained by memory decay or by a reduction in interference from other items held in VWM. Rather, orienting attention to a single memory item makes VWM more resistant to interference from the test probe. The authors conclude that the content of VWM is volatile unless it receives focused attention, and that the standard change detection task underestimates VWM capacity.     

Distinct capacity limits for attention and working memory: Evidence from attentive tracking and visual working memory paradigms

A hallmark of both visual attention and working memory is their severe capacity limit: People can attentively track only about four objects in a multiple object tracking (MOT) task and can hold only up to four objects in visual working memory (VWM). It has been proposed that attention underlies the capacity limit of VWM. We tested this hypothesis by determining the effect of varying the load of a MOT task performed during the retention interval of a VWM task and comparing the resulting dual-task costs with those observed when a VWM task was performed concurrently with another VWM task or with a verbal working memory task. Instead of supporting the view that the capacity limit of VWM is solely attention based, the results indicate that VWM capacity is set by the interaction of visuospatial attentional, central amodal, and local task-specific sources of processing.