Diverting the focus of attention in working memory through a perceptual task.

Zaifeng Gao, Jiaofeng Li, Jinglan Wu, Alessandro Dai, Huayu Liao, Mowei Shen
{"title":"Diverting the focus of attention in working memory through a perceptual task.","authors":"Zaifeng Gao,&nbsp;Jiaofeng Li,&nbsp;Jinglan Wu,&nbsp;Alessandro Dai,&nbsp;Huayu Liao,&nbsp;Mowei Shen","doi":"10.1037/xlm0001112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Working memory (WM) has a limited capacity; however, this limitation can be mitigated by selecting individual items from the set currently held in WM for prioritization. The selection mechanism underlying this prioritization ability is referred to as the focus of attention (FOA) in WM. Although impressive progress has been achieved in recent years, a fundamental question remains unclear: Do perception and WM share one FOA? In the current study, we investigated the hypothesis that only a perceptual task tapping object-based attention can divert the FOA in WM. We adopted a retro-cue WM paradigm and inserted a perceptual task after the offset of the cue. Critically, we manipulated the type of attention (object-based attention in Experiments 1-3, feature-based attention in Experiment 4, and spatial attention in Experiment 5) consumed by the perceptual task. We found that participants were able to prioritize a retro-cued representation in WM, and the retro-cue benefit on memory accuracy was intact regardless of the perceptual task. Critically, the retro-cue benefit on the response time of WM task was significantly reduced only after an object-based attention perceptual task (Experiments 1, 2, 3a, and 3b), while remaining constant after a feature-based attention (Experiment 4) or spatial attention (Experiment 5) perceptual task. These results suggest that WM and perception share an object-based FOA, and an object-based attention perceptual task can divert the FOA in WM. Meanwhile, the current study further confirms that sustained attention is not necessary for selective maintenance in WM. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":504300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition","volume":" ","pages":"876-905"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Working memory (WM) has a limited capacity; however, this limitation can be mitigated by selecting individual items from the set currently held in WM for prioritization. The selection mechanism underlying this prioritization ability is referred to as the focus of attention (FOA) in WM. Although impressive progress has been achieved in recent years, a fundamental question remains unclear: Do perception and WM share one FOA? In the current study, we investigated the hypothesis that only a perceptual task tapping object-based attention can divert the FOA in WM. We adopted a retro-cue WM paradigm and inserted a perceptual task after the offset of the cue. Critically, we manipulated the type of attention (object-based attention in Experiments 1-3, feature-based attention in Experiment 4, and spatial attention in Experiment 5) consumed by the perceptual task. We found that participants were able to prioritize a retro-cued representation in WM, and the retro-cue benefit on memory accuracy was intact regardless of the perceptual task. Critically, the retro-cue benefit on the response time of WM task was significantly reduced only after an object-based attention perceptual task (Experiments 1, 2, 3a, and 3b), while remaining constant after a feature-based attention (Experiment 4) or spatial attention (Experiment 5) perceptual task. These results suggest that WM and perception share an object-based FOA, and an object-based attention perceptual task can divert the FOA in WM. Meanwhile, the current study further confirms that sustained attention is not necessary for selective maintenance in WM. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

通过知觉任务转移工作记忆中的注意力焦点。
工作记忆(WM)的容量有限;但是,可以通过从WM中当前保存的集合中选择单个项目进行优先级排序来减轻这种限制。在WM中,这种优先排序能力背后的选择机制被称为注意力焦点(FOA)。尽管近年来取得了令人印象深刻的进展,但一个基本问题仍然不清楚:感知和WM是否共享一个FOA?在本研究中,我们研究了一个假设,即只有一个基于对象的注意的知觉任务才能转移视觉加工中的FOA。我们采用了回溯线索WM范式,并在线索偏移后插入知觉任务。关键是,我们操纵了知觉任务消耗的注意类型(实验1-3中基于物体的注意,实验4中基于特征的注意,实验5中基于空间的注意)。我们发现,参与者能够优先考虑WM中的回溯线索表征,并且无论知觉任务如何,回溯线索对记忆准确性的好处都是完整的。重要的是,只有在客体注意知觉任务(实验1、2、3a和3b)后,WM任务的回溯线索效应才会显著降低,而在特征注意知觉任务(实验4)或空间注意知觉任务(实验5)后,回溯线索效应保持不变。这些结果表明,WM和感知共享一个基于对象的FOA,而基于对象的注意感知任务可以在WM中转移FOA。同时,本研究进一步证实持续注意对于WM的选择性维持并不是必需的。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信