Does ignoring lead to worse evaluations? A new explanation of the stimulus devaluation effect

Affective evaluation of stimuli just seen in visual search tasks has been shown to depend on task-relevant stimulus configuration (Raymond, Fenske, & Tavassoli, 2003): Whereas targets and novel stimuli were evaluated similarly, distractors were devaluated. These results were explained by an inhibition-based account of the influence of selective attention on emotion. In the present experiments, we demonstrated that stimulus devaluation might not be a consequence of attentional inhibition. By simply instructing participants to react to an accepted or rejected stimulus in the visual search task of Experiment 1, we found distractor devaluation in the first case and target devaluation in the second case. We conclude that devaluation of stimuli is mediated by the affective connotation implied by response labels and instructions. This was confirmed in Experiment 2: To-be-ignored stimuli were not devaluated when participants knew that those stimuli would become task-relevant during the experiment.     

Cognitive-behavioral and electrophysiological evidence of the affective consequences of ignoring stimulus representations in working memory

Ignoring visual stimuli in the external environment leads to decreased liking of those items, a phenomenon attributed to the affective consequences of attentional inhibition. Here we investigated the generality of this “distractor devaluation” phenomenon by asking whether ignoring stimuli represented internally within visual working memory has the same affective consequences. In two experiments we presented participants with two or three visual stimuli and then, after the stimuli were no longer visible, provided an attentional cue indicating which item in memory was the target they would have to later recall, and which were task-irrelevant distractors. Participants subsequently judged how much they liked these stimuli. Previously-ignored distractors were consistently rated less favorably than targets, replicating prior findings of distractor devaluation. To gain converging evidence, in Experiment 2, we also examined the electrophysiological processes associated with devaluation by measuring individual differences in attention (N2pc) and working memory (CDA) event-related potentials following the attention cue. Larger amplitude of an N2pc-like component was associated with greater devaluation, suggesting that individuals displaying more effective selection of memory targets—an act aided by distractor inhibition—displayed greater levels of distractor devaluation. Individuals showing a larger post-cue CDA amplitude (but not pre-cue CDA amplitude) also showed greater distractor devaluation, supporting prior evidence that visual working-memory resources have a functional role in effecting devaluation. Together, these findings demonstrate that ignoring working-memory representations has affective consequences, and adds to the growing evidence that the contribution of selective-attention mechanisms to a wide range of human thoughts and behaviors leads to devaluation.     

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。     

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。     

Stressing the mind: the effect of cognitive load and articulatory suppression on attentional guidance from working memory

Four experiments explored the effect of cognitive load on the time course of top-down guidance of attention from working memory (WM). Observers had to search for a target presented among several distractors, with the target and distractor stimuli embedded inside different objects. On half of the trials, one of the distractor objects was cued by a matching item held in WM. When a single item was maintained in memory, search performance was impaired relative to a neutral baseline, where the memory and search displays did not match. These effects of WM on subsequent search were reduced by including a verbal suppression task during the WM and search displays, and by varying the WM load. The degree of competition for resources in WM is a key factor in determining the time course and magnitude of the interaction between WM and visual selection.     

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。     

Distractor interference stays constant despite variation in working memory load

Previous studies have shown that working memory (WM) plays an important role in selective attention, so that high WM load leads to inefficient distractor inhibition, in comparison with low WM load. In the present study, we examined the effect of WM on distractor processing while the extent of attentional focus was held constant. Our results show that WM load affected distractor processing only when it was positively correlated with the extent of attentional focus. When the latter was held constant, the effect of WM became negligible. Furthermore, when low WM load was paired with a wide attentional focus and high WM load was matched with a narrow attentional focus, greater distractor processing was found when the WM load was low than when it was high. These results suggest that efficient distractor inhibition may require only minimal WM resources and that the effect of WM on distractor processing is more complex than has previously been assumed.     

Feature-based inhibition underlies the affective consequences of attention

Rapid selection of a target in the presence of similar distractors can cause subsequent affective evaluation of a distractor to be more negative than that for the selected object. This distractor devaluation effect has previously been attributed to an association of attentional inhibition with the distractor's representation. Here, we investigated whether the associated inhibition leading to distractor devaluation is object based or feature based. Using colour-tinted face and building stimuli in a two-item simple visual search, followed by evaluation of face stimuli on a trustworthiness scale, we report that emotional evaluation was modified by prior attention whenever the search stimuli and the to-be-evaluated face shared the distractor feature, regardless of whether face identity seen in the two successive tasks matched or not. These data support the notion that inhibition can be feature-based and show that such inhibition can have emotional consequences.     

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.     

The affective consequences of visual attention in preview search

Comparisons of emotional evaluations of abstract stimuli just seen in a two-object visual search task show that prior distractors are devalued, as compared with prior targets or novel items, perhaps as a consequence of persistent attentional inhibition (Raymond, Fenske, & Tavassoli, 2003). To further explore such attention-emotion effects, we measured search response time in a preview search task and emotional evaluations of colorful, complex images just seen therein. On preview trials, the distractors appeared 1,000 msec before the remaining items. On no-preview trials, all the items were presented simultaneously. A single distractor was then rated for its emotional tone. Previewed distractors were consistently devalued, as compared with nonpreviewed distractors, despite longer exposure and being associated with an easier task. This effect was observed only in the participants demonstrating improved search efficiency with preview, but not in others, indicating that the attentional mechanisms underlying the preview benefit have persistent affective consequences in visual search.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

无关工作记忆表征的负性情绪信息能否捕获视觉注意?一项眼动研究

研究通过分析视觉搜索任务的首次注视点和行为反应时, 探讨无关工作记忆表征的负性情绪信息对视觉注意选择的影响。实验1发现在反映早期注意选择的首次注视点百分率指标上, 不管工作记忆表征的情绪效价如何, 均出现了显著的注意捕获效应; 实验2发现当采用中性情绪靶子刺激时, 首次注视点百分率指标上仍表现出了稳健的注意捕获效应; 在首次注视点持续时间指标上, 实验1和实验2均发现记忆匹配条件的干扰刺激显著小于控制条件的干扰刺激, 表现出注意的快速脱离; 而在行为反应时指标上, 早期的注意捕获效应消失(实验1), 甚至被反转为注意抑制效应(实验2)。这些结果表明在早期注意选择阶段, 记忆驱动的注意捕获效应不受工作记忆表征情绪效价的影响, 但认知控制会在早期注意捕获之后促使注意快速脱离记忆匹配的干扰刺激, 其作用效果受靶子刺激情绪效价的调节。     

Learning in repeated visual search

Visual search (e.g., finding a specific object in an array of other objects) is performed most effectively when people are able to ignore distracting nontargets. In repeated search, however, incidental learning of object identities may facilitate performance. In three experiments, with over 1,100 participants, we examined the extent to which search could be facilitated by object memory and by memory for spatial layouts. Participants searched for new targets (real-world, nameable objects) embedded among repeated distractors. To make the task more challenging, some participants performed search for multiple targets, increasing demands on visual working memory (WM). Following search, memory for search distractors was assessed using a surprise two-alternative forced choice recognition memory test with semantically matched foils. Search performance was facilitated by distractor object learning and by spatial memory; it was most robust when object identity was consistently tied to spatial locations and weakest (or absent) when object identities were inconsistent across trials. Incidental memory for distractors was better among participants who searched under high WM load, relative to low WM load. These results were observed when visual search included exhaustive-search trials (Experiment 1) or when all trials were self-terminating (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, stimulus exposure was equated across WM load groups by presenting objects in a single-object stream; recognition accuracy was similar to that in Experiments 1 and 2. Together, the results suggest that people incidentally generate memory for nontarget objects encountered during search and that such memory can facilitate search performance.     

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.     

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.     

基于记忆的注意捕获和注意抑制效应：ERP证据

采用工作记忆与视觉搜索双任务范式, 通过操作匹配试次出现概率来诱发不同水平的认知控制动机, 考察了基于记忆的注意引导过程的时程特点。结果：记忆匹配刺激首先诱发了N2pc成分, 随后诱发了与抑制过程相关的差异正波。并且, 认知控制动机水平越高, N2pc波幅越小、潜伏期越短; 抑制性差异正波波幅越大。结论：基于记忆的注意引导过程包括早期的注意捕获和后期的注意抑制两个阶段; 其效应量和时程受到认知控制动机水平的调节。     

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。     

The types of stimuli loaded in memory can modulate its effects on visual search

The effects of memory load in visual search (VS) have shown a diversity of results from the absence through beneficial and detrimental effects of a concurrent memory load in VS performance. One of the hypotheses intended to explain the heterogeneity of results follows the idea proposed by certain models in the context of VS that the contents of working memory (WM) can modulate the attentional processes involved in VS (Desimone & Duncan, 1995; Duncan & Humphreys, 1989). In four experiments, we manipulated the similarity of information maintained in WM and those materials playing the role of target and distractors in the VS task. The results showed a beneficial effect in the first two experiments, where the materials in WM matched the target in VS. However, when they matched the distractors in the attentional task there is no effect in the slope of the search function. Present results strengthen those theories supporting that visual working memory is fractionated to allow for maintenance of items not essential to the attentional task (Downing & Dodds, 2004).