Visual search does not remain efficient when executive working memory is working

Working memory (WM) has been thought to include not only short-term memory stores but also executive processes that operate on the contents of memory. The present study examined the involvement of WM in search using a dual-task paradigm in which participants performed visual search while manipulating or simply maintaining information held in WM. Experiments 1a and 2a involved executive WM tasks that required counting backward from a target digit and sorting a string of letters alphabetically, respectively. In both experiments, the search slopes in the dual-task condition were significantly steeper than those in a search-alone condition, indicating that performing the WM manipulation tasks influenced the efficiency of visual search. In contrast, when information was simply maintained in WM (Experiments 1b and 2b), search slopes did not differ between the single- and dual-task conditions. These results suggest that WM resources related to executive functions may be required in visual search.     

Movement and attention in visual working memory

Three experiments that adopt an interference technique to investigate the involvement of movement in the production of a spatial code are described. Arm movements rather than the more commonly employed eye movements are used to provide initial information about the sorts of movements relevant to the code and to allow an empirical separation of the contributions of movement and attention. The results confirm the interference effects of incompatible movement on the generation of the spatial code and show that movement per se rather than attention to the movement can cause a performance decrement.     

Task-based working memory guidance of visual attention

Previous research has established that holding a stimulus in working memory (WM) facilitates the deployment of visual attention to that stimulus relative to other stimuli. The present study examined whether maintaining a specific task in WM would also bias the allocation of attention to the stimuli associated with that task. Participants performed a speeded letter search task while simultaneously keeping in WM one of two task cues shown at the beginning of each trial. The results showed that task-based WM guidance of attention was modulated by response latencies. Whereas the participants with fast reaction times showed little influence of WM contents, the participants with slow reaction times took longer to respond when the letter target appeared in a distractor stimulus consistent with the task cue held in mind. A subsequent Stroop experiment found a larger Stroop interference effect from the participants in the slow group compared with those in the fast group, suggesting that the differential WM effect between the two groups may be associated with an individual's ability to inhibit task-irrelevant information. Taken together, these results expanded the realm of previous research and provided further evidence for a close link between attention and WM.     

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.     

Interactions between visual working memory and selective attention

The relationship between working memory and selective attention has traditionally been discussed as operating in one direction: Attention filters incoming information, allowing only relevant information into short-term processing stores. This study tested the prediction that the contents of visual working memory also influence the guidance of selective attention. Participants held a sample object in working memory on each trial. Two objects, one matching the sample and the other novel, were then presented simultaneously. As measured by a probe task, attention shifted to the object matching the sample. This effect generalized across object type, attentional-probe task, and working memory task. In contrast, a matched task with no memory requirement showed the opposite pattern, demonstrating that this effect is not simply due to exposure to the sample. These results confirm a specific prediction about the influence of working memory contents on the guidance of attention.     

Internal attention to features in visual short-term memory guides object learning

Attending to objects in the world affects how we perceive and remember them. What are the consequences of attending to an object in mind? In particular, how does reporting the features of a recently seen object guide visual learning? In three experiments, observers were presented with abstract shapes in a particular color, orientation, and location. After viewing each object, observers were cued to report one feature from visual short-term memory (VSTM). In a subsequent test, observers were cued to report features of the same objects from visual long-term memory (VLTM). We tested whether reporting a feature from VSTM: (1) enhances VLTM for just that feature (practice-benefit hypothesis), (2) enhances VLTM for all features (object-based hypothesis), or (3) simultaneously enhances VLTM for that feature and suppresses VLTM for unreported features (feature-competition hypothesis). The results provided support for the feature-competition hypothesis, whereby the representation of an object in VLTM was biased towards features reported from VSTM and away from unreported features (Experiment 1). This bias could not be explained by the amount of sensory exposure or response learning (Experiment 2) and was amplified by the reporting of multiple features (Experiment 3). Taken together, these results suggest that selective internal attention induces competitive dynamics among features during visual learning, flexibly tuning object representations to align with prior mnemonic goals.     

Education does not protect against age-related decline of switching focal attention in working memory

In this experimental study, effects of age and education on switching focal attention in working memory were investigated among 44 young (20-30 years) and 40 middle-aged individuals (50-60 years). To this end, a numeric n-back task comprising two lag conditions (1- and 2-back) was administered within groups. The results revealed a comparable increase of reaction time as a function of lag across age groups, but a disproportionate decrease of accuracy in the middle-aged relative to the young group. The latter effect did not interact with education, which challenges the cognitive reserve hypothesis. Moreover, the high-educated middle-aged participants showed a greater increase of reaction time as a function of lag than their low-educated counterparts. Apparently, they were not able to sustain their relatively high response speed across conditions. These results suggest that education does not protect against age-related decline of switching focal attention in working memory.     

Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: visual working memory content affects visual attention

In 7 experiments, the authors explored whether visual attention (the ability to select relevant visual information) and visual working memory (the ability to retain relevant visual information) share the same content representations. The presence of singleton distractors interfered more strongly with a visual search task when it was accompanied by an additional memory task. Singleton distractors interfered even more when they were identical or related to the object held in memory, but only when it was difficult to verbalize the memory content. Furthermore, this content-specific interaction occurred for features that were relevant to the memory task but not for irrelevant features of the same object or for once-remembered objects that could be forgotten. Finally, memory-related distractors attracted more eye movements but did not result in longer fixations. The results demonstrate memory-driven attentional capture on the basis of content-specific representations.     

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.     

The contributions of visual and central attention to visual working memory

We investigated the role of two kinds of attention—visual and central attention—for the maintenance of visual representations in working memory (WM). In Experiment 1 we directed attention to individual items in WM by presenting cues during the retention interval of a continuous delayed-estimation task, and instructing participants to think of the cued items. Attending to items improved recall commensurate with the frequency with which items were attended (0, 1, or 2 times). Experiments 1 and 3 further tested which kind of attention—visual or central—was involved in WM maintenance. We assessed the dual-task costs of two types of distractor tasks, one tapping sustained visual attention and one tapping central attention. Only the central attention task yielded substantial dual-task costs, implying that central attention substantially contributes to maintenance of visual information in WM. Experiment 2 confirmed that the visual-attention distractor task was demanding enough to disrupt performance in a task relying on visual attention. We combined the visual-attention and the central-attention distractor tasks with a multiple object tracking (MOT) task. Distracting visual attention, but not central attention, impaired MOT performance. Jointly, the three experiments provide a double dissociation between visual and central attention, and between visual WM and visual object tracking: Whereas tracking multiple targets across the visual filed depends on visual attention, visual WM depends mostly on central attention.     

Meaning guides attention during scene viewing,even when it is irrelevant

During real-world scene viewing, humans must prioritize scene regions for attention. What are the roles of low-level image salience and high-level semantic meaning in attentional prioritization? A previous study suggested that when salience and meaning are directly contrasted in scene memorization and preference tasks, attentional priority is assigned by meaning (Henderson & Hayes in Nature Human Behavior, 1, 743–747, 2017). Here we examined the role of meaning in attentional guidance using two tasks in which meaning was irrelevant and salience was relevant: a brightness rating task and a brightness search task. Meaning was represented by meaning maps that captured the spatial distribution of semantic features. Meaning was contrasted with image salience, represented by saliency maps. Critically, both maps were represented similarly, allowing us to directly compare how meaning and salience influenced the spatial distribution of attention, as measured by fixation density maps. Our findings suggest that even in tasks for which meaning is irrelevant and salience is relevant, meaningful scene regions are prioritized for attention over salient scene regions. These results support theories in which scene semantics play a dominant role in attentional guidance in scenes.     

Strategic and automatic effects of visual working memory on attention in visual search

Previous research indicates that visual attention can be automatically captured by sensory inputs that match the contents of visual working memory. However, Woodman and Luck (2007) showed that information in working memory can be used flexibly as a template for either selection or rejection according to task demands. We report two experiments that extend their work. Participants performed a visual search task while maintaining items in visual working memory. Memory items were presented for either a short or long exposure duration immediately prior to the search task. Memory was tested by a change-detection task immediately afterwards. On a random half of trials items in memory matched either one distractor in the search task (Experiment 1) or three (Experiment 2). The main result was that matching distractors speeded or slowed target detection depending on whether memory items were presented for a long or short duration. These effects were more in evidence with three matching distractors than one. We conclude that the influence of visual working memory on visual search is indeed flexible but is not solely a function of task demands. Our results suggest that attentional capture by perceptual inputs matching information in visual working memory involves a fast automatic process that can be overridden by a slower top-down process of attentional avoidance.     

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.     

Automatic guidance of visual attention from verbal working memory

Previous studies have shown that visual attention can be captured by stimuli matching the contents of working memory (WM). Here, the authors assessed the nature of the representation that mediates the guidance of visual attention from WM. Observers were presented with either verbal or visual primes (to hold in memory, Experiment 1; to verbalize, Experiment 2; or merely to attend, Experiment 3) and subsequently were required to search for a target among different distractors, each embedded within a colored shape. In half of the trials, an object in the search array matched the prime, but this object never contained the target. Despite this, search was impaired relative to a neutral baseline in which the prime and search displays did not match. An interesting finding is that verbal primes were effective in generating the effects, and verbalization of visual primes elicited similar effects to those elicited when primes were held in WM. However, the effects were absent when primes were only attended. The data suggest that there is automatic encoding into WM when items are verbalized and that verbal as well as visual WM can guide visual attention.     

Individual differences in working memory capacity predict visual attention allocation

To the extent that individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) reflect differences in attention (Baddeley, 1993; Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999), differences in WMC should predict performance on visual attention tasks. Individuals who scored in the upper and lower quartiles on the OSPAN working memory test performed a modification of Egly and Homa’s (1984) selective attention task. In this task, the participants identified a central letter and localized a displaced letter flashed somewhere on one of three concentric rings. When the displaced letter occurred closer to fixation than the cue implied, high-WMC, but not low-WMC, individuals showed a cost in the letter localization task. This suggests that low-WMC participants allocated attention as a spotlight, whereas those with high WMC showed flexible allocation.     

The time course of working memory effects on visual attention

Previous work has generated inconsistent results with regard to what extent working memory (WM) content guides visual attention. Some studies found effects of easy to verbalize stimuli, whereas others only found an influence of visual memory content. To resolve this, we compared the time courses of memory-based attentional guidance for different memory types. Participants first memorized a colour, which was either easy or difficult to verbalize. They then looked for an unrelated target in a visual search display and finally completed a memory test. One of the distractors in the search display could have the memorized colour. We varied the time between the to-be-remembered colour and the search display, as well as the ease with which the colours could be verbalized. We found that the influence of easy to verbalize WM content on visual search decreased with increasing time, whereas the influence of visual WM content was sustained. However, visual working memory effects on attention also decreased when the duration of visual encoding was limited by an additional task or when the memory item was presented only briefly. We propose that for working memory effects on visual attention to be sustained, a sufficiently strong visual representation is necessary.     

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.     

Attention on our mind: The role of spatial attention in visual working memory

The current study shows that spatial visual attention is used to retrieve information from visual working memory. Participants had to keep four colored circles in visual working memory. While keeping this information in memory we asked whether one of the colors was present in the array. While retrieving this information, on some trials a probe dot was presented. When this probe dot was presented at the location of the color that had to be retrieved, participants responded faster than when it was presented at another location. Our findings further elaborate the role of visual attention in working memory: not only is attention the mechanism by which information is stored into working memory, it is also the mechanism by which information is retrieved from visual working memory.