Psychological Research

, Volume 76, Issue 3, pp 270–279 | Cite as

Eye movements as a gatekeeper for memorization: evidence for the persistence of attentional sets in visual memory search

  • Lynn Huestegge
  • Iring Koch
Original Article


Attention is known to serve multiple goals, including the selection of information for further perceptual analysis (selection for perception) and for goal-directed behavior (selection for action). Here, we study the role of overt attention (i.e., eye movements) as a gatekeeper for memorization processes (selection for memorization). Subjects memorized complex multidimensional stimulus displays and subsequently indicated whether a specific (probe) item was present. In Experiment 1 we utilized an incidental learning setting where in the beginning only a subset of display stimuli was relevant, whereas in a transfer block all stimuli were possible probe items. In Experiment 2, we used an explicit learning setting within a between-group design. Response times and gaze patterns indicated that subjects learned to ignore irrelevant stimuli while forming memory representations. The findings suggest that complex feature binding processes in peripheral vision may serve to guide overt selective attention, which eventually contributes to filtering out irrelevant information even in highly complex environments. Gaze patterns suggested that attentional control settings persisted even when they were no longer required.


Work Memory Capacity Fixation Duration Display Size Item Type Visual Working Memory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank Jane Raymond, Werner Schneider, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on a previous draft of the manuscript, and those who kindly volunteered to participate in the study.


  1. Allport, D. A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 395–419). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Awh, E., Vogel, E., & Oh, S.-H. (2006). Interactions between attention and working memory. Neuroscience, 139, 201–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biederman, I. (1972). Perceiving real-world scenes. Science, 177, 77–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brockmole, J. R., Castelhano, M. S., & Henderson, J. M. (2006). Contextual cueing in naturalistic scenes: Global and local contexts. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 699–706.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97, 523–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castelhano, M. S., Mack, M. L., & Henderson, J. M. (2009). Viewing task influences eye movement control during active scene perception. Journal of Vision, 9(3), 1–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chun, M. M. (2000). Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 170–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (1994). Working memory and retrieval: A resource-dependent inhibition model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 354–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36, 1827–1837.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433–458.Google Scholar
  14. Findlay, J. M., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2003). Active vision: The psychology of looking and seeing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fougnie, D., & Marois, R. (2006). Distinct capacity limits for attention and working memory: Evidence from attentive tracking and visual working memory paradigms. Psychological Science, 17, 526–534.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman, A. (1979). Framing pictures: The role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 316–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (1999). Eye movement during skill acquisition: More evidence for the information-reduction hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 172–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffmann, J., & Kunde, W. (1999). Location-specific target expectancies in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1127–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Irwin, D. E., & Andrews, R. V. (1996). Integration and accumulation of information across saccadic eye movements. In T. Inui, J. McClelland, et al. (Eds.), Attention and performance 16: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 125–155). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kunde, W., & Hoffmann, J. (2005). Selecting spatial frames of reference for visual target localization. Experimental Psychology, 52, 201–212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kyllingsbaek, S., Schneider, W. X., & Bundesen, C. (2001). Automatic attraction of attention to former targets in visual displays of letters. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 85–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loftus, G. R. (1972). Eye fixations and recognition memory for pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 525–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279–281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maioli, C., Benaglio, I., Siri, S., Sosta, K., & Cappa, S. (2001). The integration of parallel and serial processing mechanisms in visual search: Evidence from eye movement recording. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 364–372.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mordkoff, J. T., & Halterman, R. (2008). Feature integration without visual attention: Evidence from the correlated flankers task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 385–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nelson, W. W., & Loftus, G. R. (1980). The functional visual field during picture viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 391–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Peterson, M. S., Beck, M. R., & Wong, J. H. (2008). Were you paying attention to where you looked? The role of executive working memory in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 372–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pratt, J., Sekuler, A., & McAuliffe, J. (2001). The role of attentional set on attentional cueing and inhibition of return. Visual Cognition, 8, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schneider, W. X., & Deubel, H. (2002). Selection-for-perception and selection-for-spatial-motor-action are coupled by visual attention: a review of recent findings and new evidence from stimulus-driven saccade control. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 609–627). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tunney, R. J. (2003). Implicit and explicit knowledge decay at different rates: A dissociation between priming and recognition in artificial grammar learning. Experimental Psychology, 50, 124–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1992). Selective attention in vision. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Vogel, E. K., Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2001). Storage of features, conjunctions, and objects in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 92–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vogel, E. K., Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2005). Pushing around the locus of selection: Evidence for the flexible selection hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1907–1922.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zelinsky, G. J., & Sheinberg, D. L. (1996). Using eye saccades to assess the selectivity of search movements. Vision Research, 36, 2177–2187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PsychologyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations