Advertisement

Distinct prioritization of visual working memory representations for search and for recall

  • Blaire DubeEmail author
  • Naseem Al-Aidroos
Article
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

Despite the inherent limitations of visual working memory (VWM), it effectively supports numerous everyday behaviors − capabilities that are due, in part, to its flexibility. An observer can flexibly prioritize VWM representations to support at least two behavioral outcomes: An item can be prioritized to enhance its representational quality, thereby enhancing recall precision, and an item can be granted “template status,” allowing it to bias attention during visual search, speeding search for matching targets. Here we examined the relationship between these two forms of prioritization. Research has shown that a byproduct of granting an item template status is that its precision is enhanced; however, it is unclear if the inverse is also true: Does prioritizing an item for enhanced representational quality cause that item to bias attention? In the present study, participants remembered the colors of two squares for a subsequent recall task, and one was cued, indicating it was 80% likely to be the target of the memory test. To assess template status, a subset of trials ended in a visual search task in which a colored singleton distractor matched the color of the cued item in memory, the non-cued item, or an unrelated color. We found that, although the cue was effective at enhancing recall precision of the cued item, it had no systematic effect on which of the two memory items was granted template status. Thus, we conclude that the two forms of prioritization in VWM − prioritization for recall and for search − are distinct.

Keywords

Visual working memory Attention Visual search 

Notes

Author Note

This work was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant to NA, and NSERC Canada Graduate Scholarship to BD.

References

  1. Bahle, B., Beck, V. M., & Hollingworth, A. (in press). The architecture of interaction between visual working memory and visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.Google Scholar
  2. Bays, P. M., Catalao, R. F. G., & Husain, M. (2009). The precision of visual working memory is set by allocation of a shared resource. Journal of Vision, 9(10), 7.1-11.  https://doi.org/10.1167/9.10.7 Google Scholar
  3. Beck, V. M., & Hollingworth, A. (2017). Competition in saccade target selection reveals attentional guidance by simultaneously active working memory representations Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 43(2), 225–230.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, V. M., Hollingworth, A., & Luck, S. J. (2012). Simultaneous control of attention by multiple working memory representations. Psychological Science, 23, 887–898.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612439068 Google Scholar
  5. Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., & Alvarez, G. A. (2011). A review of visual memory capacity : Beyond individual items and toward structured representations. Journal of Vision, 11(2011), 1–34.  https://doi.org/10.1167/11.5.4.Introduction.Google Scholar
  6. Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97(4), 523–547.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.4.523 Google Scholar
  7. Carlisle, N. B., Arita, J. T., Pardo, D., & Woodman, G. F. (2011). Attentional templates in visual working memory. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(25), 9315–9322.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1097-11.2011 Google Scholar
  8. Chen, Y., & Du, F. (2017). Two visual working memory representations simultaneously control attention. Scientific Reports, (July), 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05865-1
  9. Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short term memory. A reconsideration of storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(4), 87–186.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922 Google Scholar
  10. de Vries, I. E. J., van Driel, J., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2017). Posterior α EEG dynamics dissociate current from future goals in working memory-guided visual search. The Journal of Neuroscience, 37(6), 1591–1603.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2945-16.2016 Google Scholar
  11. Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. S. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193–222.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205 Google Scholar
  12. Dube, B., Emrich, S. M., & Al-Aidroos, N. (2017). More than a filter: Feature-based attention regualtes the distribution of visual working memory resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(10), 1843–1854.Google Scholar
  13. Dube, B., Lumsden, A., & Al-aidroos, N. (2018). Probabilistic retro-cues do not determine state in visual working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, available online.Google Scholar
  14. Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96(3), 433–458.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.433 Google Scholar
  15. Emrich, S. M., Lockhart, H. A., & Al-Aidroos, N. (2017). Attention mediates the flexible allocation of visual working memory resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(7), 1454–1465.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000398 Google Scholar
  16. Gunseli, E., Meeter, M., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2014). Is a search template an ordinary working memory? Comparing electrophysiological markers of working memory maintenance for visual search and recognition. Neuropsychologia, 60(1), 29–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.05.012 Google Scholar
  17. Hollingworth, A., & Hwang, S. (2013). The relationship between visual working memory and attention: retention of precise colour information in the absence of effects on perceptual selection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 368, 20130061.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0061 Google Scholar
  18. JASP Team. (2018). JASP (Version 0.9. 0.1)[Computer software].Google Scholar
  19. Ma, W. J., Husain, M., & Bays, P. M. (2014). Changing concepts of working memory. Nature Neuroscience, 17(3), 347–356.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3655 Google Scholar
  20. Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence Intervals from Normalized Data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64.  https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061 Google Scholar
  21. Olivers, C. N. L., Meijer, F., & Theeuwes, J. (2006). Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: visual working memory content affects visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(5), 1243–1265.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.5.1243 Google Scholar
  22. Olivers, C. N. L., Peters, J., Houtkamp, R., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2011). Different states in visual working memory: When it guides attention and when it does not. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(7), 327–334.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.004 Google Scholar
  23. Rajsic, J., Ouslis, N. E., Wilson, D. E., & Pratt, J. (2017). Looking sharp: Becoming a search template boosts precision and stability in visual working memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(6), 1643–1651.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1342-5 Google Scholar
  24. Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(2), 225–237.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225 Google Scholar
  25. Suchow, J. W., Brady, T. F., Fougnie, D., & Alvarez, G. A. (2013). Modeling visual working memory with the MemToolbox. Journal of Vision, 13(2013), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1167/13.10.9.doi Google Scholar
  26. van den Berg, R., Shin, H., Chou, W.-C. W.-C., George, R., & Ma, W. J. J. (2012). Variability in encoding precision accounts for visual short-term memory limitations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(22), 8780–8785.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117465109 Google Scholar
  27. van Moorselaar, D., Theeuwes, J., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2014). In competition for the attentional template: Can multiple items within visual working memory guide attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1450–1464.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036229 Google Scholar
  28. Vickery, T. J., King, L.-W., & Jiang, Y. (2005). Setting up the target template in visual search. Journal of Vision, 5(1), 8.  https://doi.org/10.1167/5.1.8 Google Scholar
  29. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2 . 0 A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(2), 202–238.Google Scholar
  30. Woodman, G. F., & Arita, J. T. (2011). Direct electrophysiological measurement of attentional templates in visual working memory. Association for Psychological Science, 22(2), 212–215.Google Scholar
  31. Woodman, G. F., Luck, S. J., & Schall, J. D. (2007). The role of working memory representations in the control of attention. Cerebral Cortex, 17, i118–i124.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm065 Google Scholar
  32. Zhang, W., & Luck, S. J. (2008). Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory. Nature, 453(May), 233–236.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06860 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations