Visual selective attention is equally functional for individuals with low and high working memory capacity: Evidence from accuracy and eye movements
- 812 Downloads
Selective attention and working memory capacity (WMC) are related constructs, but debate about the manner in which they are related remains active. One elegant explanation of variance in WMC is that the efficiency of filtering irrelevant information is the crucial determining factor, rather than differences in capacity per se. We examined this hypothesis by relating WMC (as measured by complex span tasks) to accuracy and eye movements during visual change detection tasks with different degrees of attentional filtering and allocation requirements. Our results did not indicate strong filtering differences between high- and low-WMC groups, and where differences were observed, they were counter to those predicted by the strongest attentional filtering hypothesis. Bayes factors indicated evidence favoring positive or null relationships between WMC and correct responses to unemphasized information, as well as between WMC and the time spent looking at unemphasized information. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that individual differences in storage capacity, not only filtering efficiency, underlie individual differences in working memory.
KeywordsAttentional control Eye movementsWorking memory Visual short-term memory Individual differences
We are grateful to Vicky Cong, Christian Hummeluhr, Sabine Kästner, Mareike Kirsch, Tuomas F. Lundström, Sebastian Scholz, An Tran, and Yixia Zheng for assistance with data collection.
- Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hughes, R. W., Hurlstone, M. J., Marsh, J. E., Vachon, F., & Jones, D. M. (2012). Cognitive control of auditory distraction: Impact of task difficulty, foreknowledge, and working memory capacity supports duplex-mechanism account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 539–553.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ishihara, S. (1966). Tests for colour blindness. Tokyo: Kanehara Shuppan.Google Scholar
- Jeffreys, S. H. (1961). The Theory of Probability (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 21–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Morey, R.D., & Rouder, J. N. (2013). Package, BayesFactor, version 0.9.4. http://bayesfactorpcl.r-forge.r-project.org/
- Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime: User's guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Incorporated.Google Scholar
- Shipstead, Z., & Engle, R. W. (2013). Interference within the focus of attention: working memory tasks reflect more than temporary maintenance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 39, 277–289.Google Scholar