Limits...
The Competitive Influences of Perceptual Load and Working Memory Guidance on Selective Attention.

Tan J, Zhao Y, Wang L, Tian X, Cui Y, Yang Q, Pan W, Zhao X, Chen A - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Standardized Low Resolution Electrical Tomography Analysis (sLORETA) showed that the WM guidance effect and the perceptual load effect on attention can be localized into the occipital area and parietal lobe, respectively.Merely identifying the cue produced no effect on the P1 or N1 component.These results suggest that in selective attention, the information held in WM could capture attention at the early stage of visual processing in the occipital cortex.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality of Ministry of Education, Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chong Qing, China.

ABSTRACT
The perceptual load theory in selective attention literature proposes that the interference from task-irrelevant distractor is eliminated when perceptual capacity is fully consumed by task-relevant information. However, the biased competition model suggests that the contents of working memory (WM) can guide attentional selection automatically, even when this guidance is detrimental to visual search. An intriguing but unsolved question is what will happen when selective attention is influenced by both perceptual load and WM guidance. To study this issue, behavioral performances and event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded when participants were presented with a cue to either identify or hold in memory and had to perform a visual search task subsequently, under conditions of low or high perceptual load. Behavioural data showed that high perceptual load eliminated the attentional capture by WM. The ERP results revealed an obvious WM guidance effect in P1 component with invalid trials eliciting larger P1 than neutral trials, regardless of the level of perceptual load. The interaction between perceptual load and WM guidance was significant for the posterior N1 component. The memory guidance effect on N1 was eliminated by high perceptual load. Standardized Low Resolution Electrical Tomography Analysis (sLORETA) showed that the WM guidance effect and the perceptual load effect on attention can be localized into the occipital area and parietal lobe, respectively. Merely identifying the cue produced no effect on the P1 or N1 component. These results suggest that in selective attention, the information held in WM could capture attention at the early stage of visual processing in the occipital cortex. Interestingly, this initial capture of attention by WM could be modulated by the level of perceptual load and the parietal lobe mediates target selection at the discrimination stage.

No MeSH data available.


The scalp voltage distribution maps of the P1 (upper panels) and N1 (lower panels) component as a function of perceptual load and validity when the cue was held in WM (left column) and when it was merely identified (right column).The time points of the P1 and N1 components were 80–120 ms and 150–190 ms both in the WM group and the mere-repeat group, respectively. The color bars show the voltage value (in μV) of the component.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4476695&req=5

pone.0129533.g005: The scalp voltage distribution maps of the P1 (upper panels) and N1 (lower panels) component as a function of perceptual load and validity when the cue was held in WM (left column) and when it was merely identified (right column).The time points of the P1 and N1 components were 80–120 ms and 150–190 ms both in the WM group and the mere-repeat group, respectively. The color bars show the voltage value (in μV) of the component.

Mentions: A four-way ANOVA with group (WM, priming), load (low, high), validity (invalid, neutral), and hemisphere (ipsilateral, contralateral) was conducted on the P1 amplitude. There was a reliable interaction effect between group and validity [F (1, 36) = 4.09, p < 0.05]. A further breakdown of interaction showed a reliable effect of validity in the WM group [F (1, 36) = 6.35, p < 0.05] and not in the priming group [F < 1]. The interaction between group, load and validity was not significant [F < 1.09]. In WM group, the validity effect was significant both at low perceptual load [F (1, 17) = 3.49, p < 0.05] and high perceptual load [F (1, 17) = 3.72, p < 0.05; see Figs 3 and 4A]. However, in the priming group, neither low perceptual load nor high perceptual load has significant validity effect (Fs < 1.13; see Figs 3 and 4B). The scalp distribution of the P1 component is shown in Fig 5. No significant main effects or interactions were observed on the P1 latency.


The Competitive Influences of Perceptual Load and Working Memory Guidance on Selective Attention.

Tan J, Zhao Y, Wang L, Tian X, Cui Y, Yang Q, Pan W, Zhao X, Chen A - PLoS ONE (2015)

The scalp voltage distribution maps of the P1 (upper panels) and N1 (lower panels) component as a function of perceptual load and validity when the cue was held in WM (left column) and when it was merely identified (right column).The time points of the P1 and N1 components were 80–120 ms and 150–190 ms both in the WM group and the mere-repeat group, respectively. The color bars show the voltage value (in μV) of the component.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4476695&req=5

pone.0129533.g005: The scalp voltage distribution maps of the P1 (upper panels) and N1 (lower panels) component as a function of perceptual load and validity when the cue was held in WM (left column) and when it was merely identified (right column).The time points of the P1 and N1 components were 80–120 ms and 150–190 ms both in the WM group and the mere-repeat group, respectively. The color bars show the voltage value (in μV) of the component.
Mentions: A four-way ANOVA with group (WM, priming), load (low, high), validity (invalid, neutral), and hemisphere (ipsilateral, contralateral) was conducted on the P1 amplitude. There was a reliable interaction effect between group and validity [F (1, 36) = 4.09, p < 0.05]. A further breakdown of interaction showed a reliable effect of validity in the WM group [F (1, 36) = 6.35, p < 0.05] and not in the priming group [F < 1]. The interaction between group, load and validity was not significant [F < 1.09]. In WM group, the validity effect was significant both at low perceptual load [F (1, 17) = 3.49, p < 0.05] and high perceptual load [F (1, 17) = 3.72, p < 0.05; see Figs 3 and 4A]. However, in the priming group, neither low perceptual load nor high perceptual load has significant validity effect (Fs < 1.13; see Figs 3 and 4B). The scalp distribution of the P1 component is shown in Fig 5. No significant main effects or interactions were observed on the P1 latency.

Bottom Line: Standardized Low Resolution Electrical Tomography Analysis (sLORETA) showed that the WM guidance effect and the perceptual load effect on attention can be localized into the occipital area and parietal lobe, respectively.Merely identifying the cue produced no effect on the P1 or N1 component.These results suggest that in selective attention, the information held in WM could capture attention at the early stage of visual processing in the occipital cortex.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality of Ministry of Education, Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chong Qing, China.

ABSTRACT
The perceptual load theory in selective attention literature proposes that the interference from task-irrelevant distractor is eliminated when perceptual capacity is fully consumed by task-relevant information. However, the biased competition model suggests that the contents of working memory (WM) can guide attentional selection automatically, even when this guidance is detrimental to visual search. An intriguing but unsolved question is what will happen when selective attention is influenced by both perceptual load and WM guidance. To study this issue, behavioral performances and event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded when participants were presented with a cue to either identify or hold in memory and had to perform a visual search task subsequently, under conditions of low or high perceptual load. Behavioural data showed that high perceptual load eliminated the attentional capture by WM. The ERP results revealed an obvious WM guidance effect in P1 component with invalid trials eliciting larger P1 than neutral trials, regardless of the level of perceptual load. The interaction between perceptual load and WM guidance was significant for the posterior N1 component. The memory guidance effect on N1 was eliminated by high perceptual load. Standardized Low Resolution Electrical Tomography Analysis (sLORETA) showed that the WM guidance effect and the perceptual load effect on attention can be localized into the occipital area and parietal lobe, respectively. Merely identifying the cue produced no effect on the P1 or N1 component. These results suggest that in selective attention, the information held in WM could capture attention at the early stage of visual processing in the occipital cortex. Interestingly, this initial capture of attention by WM could be modulated by the level of perceptual load and the parietal lobe mediates target selection at the discrimination stage.

No MeSH data available.