Interference within the Focus of Attention: Working Memory Tasks Reflect more than Temporary Maintenance

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zach Shipstead ◽  
Randall W. Engle
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Focus Of Attention

The focus of attention in working memory: Evidence from a word updating task

Memory ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Janczyk ◽  
Joachim Grabowski
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Focus Of Attention

scholarly journals Motor learning in children with developmental coordination disorder: The role of focus of attention and working memory

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 ◽  
pp. 211-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra J.M. van Cappellen – van Maldegem ◽  
Femke van Abswoude ◽  
Hilde Krajenbrink ◽  
Bert Steenbergen
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Motor Learning ◽  
Developmental Coordination Disorder ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Coordination Disorder

scholarly journals The Time-Course of the Last-Presented Benefit in Working Memory: Shifts in the Content of the Focus of Attention

2022 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 8
Author(s):  
Beatrice Valentini ◽  
Kim Uittenhove ◽  
Evie Vergauwe
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Focus Of Attention

scholarly journals Dissecting the Neural Focus of Attention Reveals Distinct Processes for Spatial Attention and Object-Based Storage in Visual Working Memory

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 526-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Hakim ◽  
Kirsten C. S. Adam ◽  
Eren Gunseli ◽  
Edward Awh ◽  
Edward K. Vogel
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Spatial Attention ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Neural Signals ◽  
Attention Task ◽  
Spatial Orienting ◽  
Object Based ◽  
Object Storage ◽  
On Line

Complex cognition relies on both on-line representations in working memory (WM), said to reside in the focus of attention, and passive off-line representations of related information. Here, we dissected the focus of attention by showing that distinct neural signals index the on-line storage of objects and sustained spatial attention. We recorded electroencephalogram (EEG) activity during two tasks that employed identical stimulus displays but varied the relative demands for object storage and spatial attention. We found distinct delay-period signatures for an attention task (which required only spatial attention) and a WM task (which invoked both spatial attention and object storage). Although both tasks required active maintenance of spatial information, only the WM task elicited robust contralateral delay activity that was sensitive to mnemonic load. Thus, we argue that the focus of attention is maintained via a collaboration between distinct processes for covert spatial orienting and object-based storage.

Time of presentation affects auditory distraction: Changing-state and deviant sounds disrupt similar working memory processes

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 457-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrike Körner ◽  
Jan P Röer ◽  
Axel Buchner ◽  
Raoul Bell
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Serial Recall ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Recall Task ◽  
Auditory Distraction ◽  
Memory Processes ◽  
Serial Recall Task ◽  
Time Of Presentation

Four experiments tested conflicting predictions about which components of the serial-recall task are most sensitive to auditory distraction. Changing-state (Experiments 1a and 1b) and deviant distractor sounds (Experiments 2a and 2b) were presented in one of four different intervals of the serial-recall task: (1) during the first half of encoding, (2) during the second half of encoding, (3) during the first half of retention, or (4) during the second half of retention. According to the embedded-processes model, both types of distractors should interfere with the encoding and rehearsal of targets in the focus of attention. According to the duplex-mechanism account, changing-state distractors should interfere only with rehearsal, whereas deviant distractors should interfere only with encoding. Inconsistent with the latter view, changing-state and deviant distractor sounds interfered with both the encoding and the retention of the targets. Both types of auditory distraction were most pronounced during the second half of encoding when the increasing rehearsal demands had to be coordinated with the continuous updating of the rehearsal set. These findings suggest that the two types of distraction disrupt similar working memory mechanisms.

Stimulus-induced Alpha Suppression Tracks the Difficulty of Attentional Selection, Not Visual Working Memory Storage

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sisi Wang ◽  
Emma E. Megla ◽  
Geoffrey F. Woodman
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Selective Attention ◽  
Visual System ◽  
Visual Processing ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Memory Storage ◽  
Alpha Band ◽  
Perceptual Attention ◽  
Band Activity

Human alpha-band activity (8–12 Hz) has been proposed to index a variety of mechanisms during visual processing. Here, we distinguished between an account in which alpha suppression indexes selective attention versus an account in which it indexes subsequent working memory storage. We manipulated two aspects of the visual stimuli that perceptual attention is believed to mitigate before working memory storage: the potential interference from distractors and the size of the focus of attention. We found that the magnitude of alpha-band suppression tracked both of these aspects of the visual arrays. Thus, alpha-band activity after stimulus onset is clearly related to how the visual system deploys perceptual attention and appears to be distinct from mechanisms that store target representations in working memory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document