Susceptibility to visual interference in working memory: Different results depending on the prioritization mode?

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Caro Hautekiet, Marcel Niklaus, Klaus Oberauer
{"title":"Susceptibility to visual interference in working memory: Different results depending on the prioritization mode?","authors":"Caro Hautekiet, Marcel Niklaus, Klaus Oberauer","doi":"10.1037/xhp0001315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Among several items held in working memory, an item can be prioritized by focusing attention on it. Some studies found that an item in the focus of attention is better protected from interference than other items in working memory. Others have found that a prioritized item is particularly vulnerable to interference. These two groups of studies have used different ways to study information in the focus of attention in working memory. Protection for the prioritized item has been found when a retro-cue has been used to direct attention to this item, whereas particular vulnerability has been observed for the last-presented item of a serially presented list, which is often assumed to remain in the focus of attention during the retention interval. As these two methods might represent distinct forms of prioritization, we examined whether these two prioritization modes result in opposing results. To do so, we sequentially presented four to-be-memorized colored shapes and probed memory with a recall task. We varied the presentation of interfering visual stimuli following the last list item. In half of the trials, we indicated which item was most likely to be probed using a retro-cue (Experiments 1 and 5) or a precue (Experiments 2-4). We observed some evidence for the last-presented item being particularly vulnerable to visual interference but only in specific task situations. Generally, we observed that memory items were equally vulnerable to visual interference regardless of their priority state in working memory and regardless of the prioritization mode used. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":50195,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001315","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Among several items held in working memory, an item can be prioritized by focusing attention on it. Some studies found that an item in the focus of attention is better protected from interference than other items in working memory. Others have found that a prioritized item is particularly vulnerable to interference. These two groups of studies have used different ways to study information in the focus of attention in working memory. Protection for the prioritized item has been found when a retro-cue has been used to direct attention to this item, whereas particular vulnerability has been observed for the last-presented item of a serially presented list, which is often assumed to remain in the focus of attention during the retention interval. As these two methods might represent distinct forms of prioritization, we examined whether these two prioritization modes result in opposing results. To do so, we sequentially presented four to-be-memorized colored shapes and probed memory with a recall task. We varied the presentation of interfering visual stimuli following the last list item. In half of the trials, we indicated which item was most likely to be probed using a retro-cue (Experiments 1 and 5) or a precue (Experiments 2-4). We observed some evidence for the last-presented item being particularly vulnerable to visual interference but only in specific task situations. Generally, we observed that memory items were equally vulnerable to visual interference regardless of their priority state in working memory and regardless of the prioritization mode used. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
145
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance publishes studies on perception, control of action, perceptual aspects of language processing, and related cognitive processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信