视觉工作记忆负载类型对注意选择的影响

通过操纵Flanker任务相对于视觉工作记忆任务的呈现位置, 探讨在视觉工作记忆编码和保持阶段, 精度负载和容量负载对注意选择的影响。行为结果发现, Flanker任务呈现位置和视觉工作记忆负载类型影响注意选择; ERP结果发现, 在保持阶段, 当搜索目标和干扰项不一致时, 负载类型影响N2成分。研究表明, 在编码阶段, 视觉工作记忆负载主要通过占用更多知觉资源降低干扰效应, 支持知觉负载理论; 而在保持阶段, 当Flanker任务位于记忆项内部时, 两类负载在工作记忆表征过程中不同的神经活动导致投入到注意选择的认知控制资源不同, 可能是两类负载影响保持阶段注意选择的机制。     

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。     

工作记忆表征的激活与抑制状态对注意引导效应的影响

本研究采用双任务范式, 通过定向遗忘任务操纵工作记忆表征状态, 分别在目标无关和目标相关条件下考察工作记忆激活与抑制状态对视觉搜索早期注意引导效应的影响。实验1与实验2发现当工作记忆表征只可能与视觉搜索分心物匹配时(目标无关条件), 处于激活状态的工作记忆表征会引导视觉注意偏向到与之匹配的分心物, 表现出注意引导效应, 而处于抑制状态的工作记忆表征则没有观察到注意引导效应。实验3与实验4发现, 当工作记忆表征有可能与视觉搜索目标匹配时(目标相关条件), 处于激活状态的工作记忆表征能捕获注意, 而处于抑制状态的工作记忆表征只有与视觉搜索目标匹配时, 才表现出对该搜索目标反应的延迟。这些研究的结果表明(1)处于激活状态的工作记忆表征能有效地引导注意偏向到与之匹配的搜索目标或分心物, 并且这种注意引导效应并未受到抑制动机的影响而被消除或反转; (2)处于抑制状态的工作记忆表征能将抑制状态传递到视觉搜索阶段, 并延迟对与之匹配的搜索目标的反应。     

无关长时记忆表征能否引导视觉注意选择?

与任务相关的长时记忆表征在引导视觉注意选择的过程中扮演着重要的角色,它可以使人们在熟悉的视觉情境中快速搜索目标刺激,并偏离干扰刺激。但当长时记忆表征与任务无关时,还能否引导视觉注意选择?目前还不清楚。实验1采用眼动追踪技术直接比较无关工作记忆表征与无关长时记忆表征在视觉搜索阶段对视觉注意的捕获效应,行为反应时与首次注视点百分率的结果都发现,当无关工作记忆表征在视觉搜索中再次出现时能引导视觉注意偏向到与之匹配的干扰刺激,但无关长时记忆表征并没有表现出类似的注意引导效应;实验2探讨记忆表征由工作记忆系统转移到长时记忆系统的过程中对视觉注意的引导效应,结果发现,随着记忆表征的转移,注意引导效应消失了,实验3排除工作记忆表征的干扰后,依然没有发现无关长时记忆表征对注意的引导效应。以上结果表明,无关长时记忆表征并不能像工作记忆表征一样引导视觉注意选择,工作记忆表征和长时记忆表征对视觉注意的引导属于两个不同的认知过程。     

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。     

认知控制在工作记忆表征引导注意中的作用:来自眼动的证据

研究同时采用首次注视点百分率与行为反应时指标,探讨了认知控制在无关工作记忆表征引导视觉注意选择过程中的作用。实验1发现:当视觉搜索容易时,首次注视点百分率和反应时指标都出现了注意引导效应;而当视觉搜索困难时,在反映早期注意定向的首次注视点百分率指标上,搜索快的被试组的注意引导效应显著大于搜索慢的被试组,而在行为反应时指标上,搜索快的被试组表现出注意引导效应,但搜索慢的被试组则表现出相反的注意拒绝效应。实验2发现当采用更为突显的靶子刺激时,首次注视点百分率指标上表现出的注意引导效应并未受到视觉搜索靶子显著性的影响,甚至还表现出一定的优先性。这些结果表明认知控制在工作记忆表征引导视觉注意的过程中所起的作用是动态变化的,视觉搜索早期注意定向阶段的注意引导效应比较稳健,认知控制只能减弱其效应的量值,而在随后的视觉搜索过程中,当视觉搜索比较缓慢时,认知控制可能会将注意引导效应反转为相反的注意拒绝效应。     

工作记忆内容驱动完全无关刺激捕获注意

研究通过三个实验以检验工作记忆内容能否自动引导注意选择视场中与之匹配的任务完全无关刺激。实验一要求被试在工作记忆保持阶段完成一个视觉搜索任务，结果发现当搜索序列外的无关干扰刺激与工作记忆内容匹配时搜索绩效显著降低；实验二结果表明该干扰效应不能归因于自下而上的启动机制，因为对颜色刺激仅仅进行知觉辨认而没有工作记忆加工时并没有产生启动效应；实验三通过缩短搜索任务刺激的呈现时间以使得被试在完成搜索任务前没有足够时间眼跳至无关干扰刺激，结果发现了与实验一类似的干扰效应，说明在没有眼跳的情况下与工作记忆内容匹配的完全无关刺激可以捕获注意。这些结果表明保持在工作记忆中的信息表征可以自动引导注意选择视场中与之匹配的任务完全无关刺激，为基于工作记忆内容的注意捕获提供了新证据支持。     

空间工作记忆负载对真实场景情境提示效应的影响

重复的画面布局能够促进观察者对目标项的搜索 (情境提示效应)。本研究采用双任务范式,分别在视觉搜索任务的学习阶段 (实验2a) 和测验阶段 (实验2b) 加入空间工作记忆任务, 并与单任务基线 (实验1)进行比较, 考察空间工作记忆负载对真实场景搜索中情境线索学习和情境提示效应表达的影响。结果发现: 空间负载会增大学习阶段的情境提示效应量, 同时削弱测验阶段的情境提示效应量, 而不影响情境线索的外显提取。由此可见, 真实场景中情境线索的学习和提示效应的表达均会受到有限的工作记忆资源的影响, 但情境线索提取的外显性不变。     

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。     

视觉工作记忆负载对听觉偏差干扰效应的调控：来自不同外周提示线索的证据

采用线索提示和视听Oddball结合的实验设计, 通过四个实验探讨了外周视线索下视觉工作记忆负载对听觉偏差干扰效应的调控作用。结果表明：(1)操作外周视线索有效性为50%的条件下, 视觉工作记忆负载的增加使得原本抑制无关声音的过程失败, 因此出现了显著的听觉偏差干扰效应; (2)操作外周视线索有效性为80%的条件下, 发现有策略性的注意定向消耗了注意资源, 无视觉工作记忆负载的情况下同样出现听觉偏差干扰, 并且随着工作记忆负载增加偏差干扰效应增强。研究说明视觉工作记忆负载对听觉偏差干扰的调控是有条件性的, 当来自不同感觉通道的无关刺激与目标的加工过程存在重叠时, 视觉工作记忆负载的增加使得听觉偏差干扰效应增强而不是减弱。     

工作记忆表征精度加工需求对注意引导的影响

采用注意捕获范式, 通过行为和事件相关脑电位(ERP)实验, 探讨工作记忆表征精度加工需求对注意引导的影响, 行为结果发现, 在低精度加工需求条件下, 只有一个工作记忆表征引导注意, 且处于高激活状态的工作记忆表征产生的注意捕获大于低激活状态; 而在高精度加工需求条件下, 有两个工作记忆表征引导注意, 且处于高、低激活状态的工作记忆表征产生的注意捕获没有差异。ERP结果显示, 高精度加工需求条件下诱发的NSW和LPC大于低精度加工需求条件; 在高精度加工需求条件下, 干扰项与记忆项匹配比不匹配时, 诱发更大的N2和更小的N2pc, 而在低精度加工需求条件下, 干扰项与记忆项匹配和不匹配时诱发的N2、N2pc没有差异。研究表明, 工作记忆表征精度加工需求影响注意引导的机制可能是高精度加工需求下, 工作记忆表征消耗的认知资源增加, 搜索目标获得的资源减少, 干扰项捕获的注意增加。     

Cognitive control over working memory biases of selection

Across many studies, researchers have found that representations in working memory (WM) can guide visual attention toward items that match the features of the WM contents. While some researchers have contended that this occurs involuntarily, others have suggested that the impact of WM contents on attention can be strategically controlled. Here, we varied the probability that WM items would coincide with either targets or distractors in a visual search task to examine (1) whether participants could intentionally enhance or inhibit the influence of WM items on attention and (2) whether cognitive control over WM biases would also affect access to the memory contents in a surprise recognition test. We found visual search to be faster when the WM item coincided with the search target, and this effect was enhanced when the memory item reliably predicted the location of the target. Conversely, visual search was slowed when the memory item coincided with a search distractor, and this effect was diminished, but not abolished, when the memory item was reliably associated with distractors. This strategic dampening of the influence of WM items on attention came at a price to memory, however, as participants were slowest to perform WM recognition tests on blocks in which the WM contents were consistently invalid. These results document that attentional capture by WM contents is partly, but not fully, malleable by top-down control, which appears to adjust the state of the WM contents to optimize search behavior. These data illustrate the role of cognitive control in modulating the strength of WM biases of selection, and they support a tight coupling between WM and attention.     

工作记忆负荷对无意注意的影响

通过探讨工作记忆负荷对无意注意的影响,考察工作记忆的认知控制功能对选择性注意的作用机制。为了避免工作记忆和选择注意的目标或者干扰子之间的知觉注意资源的竞争,采用言语工作记忆任务和视觉空间位置辨别任务,同时视觉干扰刺激采用被试无法识别的韩语。结果发现,在高负荷条件下,干扰效应显著;而在低和中负荷条件下,没有观察到干扰效应。说明在高负荷条件下,被试没有额外的资源来抑制干扰加工,从而出现了显著的干扰效应。由此,本研究支持负荷理论的观点：工作记忆在选择性注意中执行认知控制功能。     

Visual short-term memory load strengthens selective attention

Perceptual load theory accounts for many attentional phenomena; however, its mechanism remains elusive because it invokes underspecified attentional resources. Recent dual-task evidence has revealed that a concurrent visual short-term memory (VSTM) load slows visual search and reduces contrast sensitivity, but it is unknown whether a VSTM load also constricts attention in a canonical perceptual load task. If attentional selection draws upon VSTM resources, then distraction effects—which measure attentional “spill-over”—will be reduced as competition for resources increases. Observers performed a low perceptual load flanker task during the delay period of a VSTM change detection task. We observed a reduction of the flanker effect in the perceptual load task as a function of increasing concurrent VSTM load. These findings were not due to perceptual-level interactions between the physical displays of the two tasks. Our findings suggest that perceptual representations of distractor stimuli compete with the maintenance of visual representations held in memory. We conclude that access to VSTM determines the degree of attentional selectivity; when VSTM is not completely taxed, it is more likely for task-irrelevant items to be consolidated and, consequently, affect responses. The “resources” hypothesized by load theory are at least partly mnemonic in nature, due to the strong correspondence they share with VSTM capacity.     

Distractor devaluation requires visual working memory

Visual stimuli seen previously as distractors in a visual search task are subsequently evaluated more negatively than those seen as targets. An attentional inhibition account for this distractor-devaluation effect posits that associative links between attentional inhibition and to-be-ignored stimuli are established during search, stored, and then later reinstantiated, implying that distractor devaluation may require visual working memory (WM) resources. To assess this, we measured distractor devaluation with and without a concurrent visual WM load. Participants viewed a memory array, performed a simple search task, evaluated one of the search items (or a novel item), and then viewed a memory test array. Although distractor devaluation was observed with low (and no) WM load, it was absent when WM load was increased. This result supports the notions that active association of current attentional states with stimuli requires WM and that memory for these associations plays a role in affective response.     

Visual working memory load disrupts the space‐based attentional guidance of target selection

During visual search, the selection of target objects is guided by stored representations of target‐defining features (attentional templates). It is commonly believed that such templates are maintained in visual working memory (WM), but empirical evidence for this assumption remains inconclusive. Here, we tested whether retaining non‐spatial object features (shapes) in WM interferes with attentional target selection processes in a concurrent search task that required spatial templates for target locations. Participants memorized one shape (low WM load) or four shapes (high WM load) in a sample display during a retention period. On some trials, they matched them to a subsequent memory test display. On other trials, a search display including two lateral bars in the upper or lower visual field was presented instead, and participants reported the orientation of target bars that were defined by their location (e.g., upper left or lower right). To assess the efficiency of attentional control under low and high WM load, EEG was recorded and the N2pc was measured as a marker of attentional target selection. Target N2pc components were strongly delayed when concurrent WM load was high, indicating that holding multiple object shapes in WM competes with the simultaneous retention of spatial attentional templates for target locations. These observations provide new electrophysiological evidence that such templates are maintained in WM, and also challenge suggestions that spatial and non‐spatial contents are represented in separate independent visual WM stores.     

Dynamic states in working memory modulate guidance of visual attention: Evidence from an n-back paradigm

Items held in working memory (WM) can automatically bias attention when they reappear in visual displays. Recent evidence, however, suggests that WM biases of attention may be reduced under certain conditions, for example with increasing memory load. We employed a dual task paradigm to investigate how WM biases are affected by dynamic updating of memory contents. 1-back and 2-back versions of a memory task with colour stimuli were interrupted at intervals by an unrelated visual search task. Reappearance in the search display of the item that was currently active in WM guided attention, while suppressed or inactive items did not. We conclude that the rapid updating of memory contents facilitates the shifting of memory representations into different activity states on a moment-to-moment basis. The finding is consistent with models that propose that only one item can be “active” in WM at any one time to guide attention.     

Emotional influences on perception and working memory

Although there has been steady progress elucidating the influence of emotion on cognition, it remains unclear precisely when and why emotion impairs or facilitates cognition. The present study investigated the mechanisms involved in the influence of emotion on perception and working memory (WM), using modified 0-back and 2-back tasks, respectively. First, results showed that attentional focus modulated the impact of emotion on perception. Specifically, emotion facilitated perceptual task performance when it was relevant to the task, but it impaired performance when it was irrelevant to the task. The differential behavioural effect of emotion on perception as a function of attentional focus diminished under high WM load. Second, attentional focus did not directly modulate the impact of emotion on WM, but rather its influence depended on the dynamic relationship between internal representations. Specifically, WM performance was worse when the material already being held online and the new input were of matching emotions (e.g. both were negative), compared to when they were not. We propose that the competition between “bottom-up” and “top-down” processing for limited cognitive resources explains the nature of the influence of emotion on both perception and WM.     

Executive working memory load does not compromise perceptual processing during visual search: Evidence from additive factors analysis

Executive working memory (WM) load reduces the efficiency of visual search, but the mechanisms by which this occurs are not fully known. In the present study, we assessed the effect of executive load on perceptual processing during search. Participants performed a serial oculomotor search task, looking for a circle target among gapped-circle distractors. The participants performed the task under high and low executive WM load, and the visual quality (Experiment 1) or discriminability of targets and distractors (Experiment 2) was manipulated across trials. By the logic of the additive factors method (Sternberg, 1969, 1998), if WM load compromises the quality of perceptual processing during visual search, manipulations of WM load and perceptual processing difficulty should produce nonadditive effects. Contrary to this prediction, the effects of WM load and perceptual difficulty were additive. The results imply that executive WM load does not degrade perceptual analysis during visual search.