工作记忆中视觉干扰的易感性:不同优先顺序模式的不同结果?

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Caro Hautekiet, Marcel Niklaus, Klaus Oberauer
{"title":"工作记忆中视觉干扰的易感性:不同优先顺序模式的不同结果?","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":"791-807"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"791-807\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"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\":\"2025/4/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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":"2025/4/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在工作记忆中保存的几个项目中,一个项目可以通过集中注意力来优先考虑。一些研究发现,与工作记忆中的其他项目相比,处于注意力焦点的项目能更好地免受干扰。其他人则发现,优先事项特别容易受到干扰。这两组研究使用了不同的方法来研究工作记忆中注意力焦点的信息。当使用回溯提示来引导对优先项的关注时,发现了对优先项的保护,而对于连续呈现的列表中最后呈现的项,发现了特定的漏洞,通常认为在保留间隔期间,该项仍然是关注的焦点。由于这两种方法可能代表不同的优先级形式,我们研究了这两种优先级模式是否会导致相反的结果。为了做到这一点,我们依次呈现了四个需要记忆的彩色形状,并通过回忆任务来探索记忆。在最后一项之后,我们改变了干扰性视觉刺激的呈现。在一半的实验中,我们用回溯提示(实验1和5)或预提示(实验2-4)指出哪个项目最有可能被探测。我们观察到一些证据表明,最后呈现的项目特别容易受到视觉干扰,但仅在特定的任务情况下。总的来说,我们观察到,无论记忆项目在工作记忆中的优先状态如何,无论使用何种优先模式,它们都同样容易受到视觉干扰。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 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。
Susceptibility to visual interference in working memory: Different results depending on the prioritization mode?

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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