scholarly journals Affective evidence that inhibition is involved in separating accessory representations from the active representation in visual working memory

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David De Vito ◽  
Mark J. Fenske
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Visual Search ◽  
Visual Working Memory ◽  
State Theory ◽  
Active Representation ◽  
Affective Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Task ◽  
Multiple State ◽  
Competing Hypotheses ◽  
Trial Participants

The multiple state theory of working memory suggests that representations are divided into two states: a focused-on active representation and accessory memories held for later use. Here, we tested two competing hypotheses regarding the neurocognitive mechanisms responsible for this separation: (1) that accessory memories undergo inhibition or (2) that accessory memories are amplified less than active representations. We explored if accessory memories undergo affective devaluation, a known index of the involvement of inhibition in a visual task. On each trial participants memorized four items, were cued to focus on one, and then completed a visual search or an affective evaluation task. While search distractors matching the colour of an active item slowed search, those matching an accessory memory did not, replicating previous findings that only active items guide search. Also, accessory items were affectively devalued compared to baseline and active items, supporting the hypothesis that accessory memories undergo inhibition.

scholarly journals Can you have multiple attentional templates? Large-scale replications of Van Moorselaar, Theeuwes and Olivers (2014) and Hollingworth and Beck (2016)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcella Frătescu ◽  
Dirk Van Moorselaar ◽  
Sebastiaan Mathôt
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Visual Search ◽  
Boundary Conditions ◽  
Visual Working Memory ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Search Task ◽  
Visual Search Task ◽  
Multiple State ◽  
Bias Attention ◽  
Larger Sample

AbstractStimuli that resemble the content of visual working memory (VWM) capture attention. However, theories disagree on how many VWM items can bias attention simultaneously. The multiple-state account posits a distinction between template and accessory VWM items, such that only a single template item biases attention. In contrast, homogenous-state accounts posit that all VWM items bias attention. Recently, Van Moorselaar et al. (2014) and Hollingworth and Beck (2016) tested these accounts, but obtained seemingly contradictory results. Van Moorselaar et al. (2014) found that a distractor in a visual-search task captured attention more when it matched the content of VWM (memory-driven capture). Crucially, memory-driven capture disappeared when more than one item was held in VWM, in line with the multiple-state account. In contrast, Hollingworth and Beck (2016) found memory-driven capture even when multiple items were kept in VWM, in line with a homogenous-state account. Considering these mixed results, we replicated both studies with a larger sample, and found that all key results are reliable. It is unclear to what extent these divergent results are due to paradigm differences between the studies. We conclude that is crucial to our understanding of VWM to determine the boundary conditions under which memory-driven capture occurs.

scholarly journals How do we measure attention? Using factor analysis to establish construct validity of neuropsychological tests

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Treviño ◽  
Xiaoshu Zhu ◽  
Yi Yi Lu ◽  
Luke S. Scheuer ◽  
Eliza Passell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Visual Search ◽  
Object Tracking ◽  
Visual Working Memory ◽  
Neuropsychological Tests ◽  
Digit Span ◽  
Digit Symbol ◽  
Attentional Capacity ◽  
Spatial Span

AbstractWe investigated whether standardized neuropsychological tests and experimental cognitive paradigms measure the same cognitive faculties. Specifically, do neuropsychological tests commonly used to assess attention measure the same construct as attention paradigms used in cognitive psychology and neuroscience? We built on the “general attention factor”, comprising several widely used experimental paradigms (Huang et al., 2012). Participants (n = 636) completed an on-line battery (TestMyBrain.org) of six experimental tests [Multiple Object Tracking, Flanker Interference, Visual Working Memory, Approximate Number Sense, Spatial Configuration Visual Search, and Gradual Onset Continuous Performance Task (Grad CPT)] and eight neuropsychological tests [Trail Making Test versions A & B (TMT-A, TMT-B), Digit Symbol Coding, Forward and Backward Digit Span, Letter Cancellation, Spatial Span, and Arithmetic]. Exploratory factor analysis in a subset of 357 participants identified a five-factor structure: (1) attentional capacity (Multiple Object Tracking, Visual Working Memory, Digit Symbol Coding, Spatial Span), (2) search (Visual Search, TMT-A, TMT-B, Letter Cancellation); (3) Digit Span; (4) Arithmetic; and (5) Sustained Attention (GradCPT). Confirmatory analysis in 279 held-out participants showed that this model fit better than competing models. A hierarchical model where a general cognitive factor was imposed above the five specific factors fit as well as the model without the general factor. We conclude that Digit Span and Arithmetic tests should not be classified as attention tests. Digit Symbol Coding and Spatial Span tap attentional capacity, while TMT-A, TMT-B, and Letter Cancellation tap search (or attention-shifting) ability. These five tests can be classified as attention tests.

A direct neural measure of variable precision representations in visual working memory

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Merkel ◽  
Mandy Viktoria Bartsch ◽  
Mircea A Schoenfeld ◽  
Anne-Katrin Vellage ◽  
Notger G Müller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Visual Working Memory ◽  
Recall Performance ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Item Information ◽  
Estimation Task ◽  
Active Representation ◽  
Contralateral Delay Activity ◽  
Memory Representations ◽  
Precision Estimation

Visual working memory (VWM) is an active representation enabling the manipulation of item information even in the absence of visual input. A common way to investigate VWM is to analyze the performance at later recall. This approach, however, leaves uncertainties about whether the variation of recall performance is attributable to item encoding and maintenance or to the testing of memorized information. Here, we record the contralateral delay activity (CDA) - an established electrophysiological measure of item storage and maintenance - in human subjects performing a delayed orientation precision estimation task. This allows us to link the fluctuation of recall precision directly to the process of item encoding and maintenance. We show that for two sequentially encoded orientation items, the CDA amplitude reflects the precision of orientation recall of both items, with higher precision being associated with a larger amplitude. Furthermore, we show that the CDA amplitude for each item varies independently from each other, suggesting that the precision of memory representations fluctuates independently.

scholarly journals Visual working memory representations are shifted toward irrelevant features of distractors in intervening visual search tasks

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 311b
Author(s):  
Zachary A Lively ◽  
Gavin JP Ng ◽  
Simona Buetti ◽  
Alejandro Lleras
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Visual Search ◽  
Visual Working Memory ◽  
Search Tasks ◽  
Memory Representations

scholarly journals Visual Search Elicits the Electrophysiological Marker of Visual Working Memory

PLoS ONE ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. e8042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Emrich ◽  
Naseem Al-Aidroos ◽  
Jay Pratt ◽  
Susanne Ferber
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Visual Search ◽  
Visual Working Memory

scholarly journals RETRACTED: A Common Discrete Resource for Visual Working Memory and Visual Search

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 929-938 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Anderson ◽  
Edward K. Vogel ◽  
Edward Awh
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Visual Search ◽  
Visual Working Memory

scholarly journals Reward influences the allocation but not the availability of resources in visual working memory

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A Brissenden ◽  
Tyler J Adkins ◽  
Yu Ting Hsu ◽  
Taraz G Lee
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Visual Working Memory ◽  
Memory Task ◽  
Allocation Of Resources ◽  
Proactive Control ◽  
Information Studies ◽  
Recall Error ◽  
Total Capacity ◽  
Trial Participants ◽  
Total Resource

Visual working memory possesses strict capacity constraints which place limits on the availability of resources for encoding and maintaining information. Studies have shown that prospective rewards improve performance on visual working memory tasks, but it remains unclear whether rewards increase total resource availability or rather influence the allocation of resources without affecting availability. Participants performed a continuous report visual working memory task with oriented grating stimuli. On each trial, participants were presented with a priority cue, which signaled the item most likely to be probed, and a reward cue, which signaled the magnitude of a performance-contingent reward. We showed that rewards decreased recall error for cued items and increased recall error for non-cued items. We further demonstrated that rewards produced a tradeoff in the probability of successfully encoding a cued versus a non-cued item rather than a tradeoff in recall precision or the probability of binding errors. Lastly, we showed that rewards only affected resource allocation when participants were given the opportunity to engage proactive control prior to encoding. These findings indicate that rewards influence the flexible allocation of resources during selection and encoding in visual working memory, but do not augment total capacity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document