Limits...
Selection in spatial working memory is independent of perceptual selective attention, but they interact in a shared spatial priority map.

Hedge C, Oberauer K, Leonards U - Atten Percept Psychophys (2015)

Bottom Line: Experiments 2a and 2b corroborated the independence of selection observed in Experiment 1, but showed a benefit to reaction times when the placement of the arrow cue was aligned with the locations of relevant objects in WM.Experiment 2c showed that the same benefit also occurs when participants are not able to mark an updating location through eye fixations.Together, these data can be accounted for by a framework in which perceptual selection and selection in WM are separate mechanisms that interact through a shared spatial priority map.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Tower Build, Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK. hedgec@cardiff.ac.uk.

ABSTRACT
We examined the relationship between the attentional selection of perceptual information and of information in working memory (WM) through four experiments, using a spatial WM-updating task. Participants remembered the locations of two objects in a matrix and worked through a sequence of updating operations, each mentally shifting one dot to a new location according to an arrow cue. Repeatedly updating the same object in two successive steps is typically faster than switching to the other object; this object switch cost reflects the shifting of attention in WM. In Experiment 1, the arrows were presented in random peripheral locations, drawing perceptual attention away from the selected object in WM. This manipulation did not eliminate the object switch cost, indicating that the mechanisms of perceptual selection do not underlie selection in WM. Experiments 2a and 2b corroborated the independence of selection observed in Experiment 1, but showed a benefit to reaction times when the placement of the arrow cue was aligned with the locations of relevant objects in WM. Experiment 2c showed that the same benefit also occurs when participants are not able to mark an updating location through eye fixations. Together, these data can be accounted for by a framework in which perceptual selection and selection in WM are separate mechanisms that interact through a shared spatial priority map.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

The patterns of data predicted by each of our three hypotheses—(i) the dependence hypothesis, (ii) the independence hypothesis, and (iii) the shared-map hypothesis—for Experiment 1 (top row) and Experiments 2a, 2b, and 2c (bottom row). The typically observed object switch cost/repetition benefit reflects faster reaction times in repetition updates (white symbols) than in switch updates (gray symbols). See the text for further details
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644201&req=5

Fig3: The patterns of data predicted by each of our three hypotheses—(i) the dependence hypothesis, (ii) the independence hypothesis, and (iii) the shared-map hypothesis—for Experiment 1 (top row) and Experiments 2a, 2b, and 2c (bottom row). The typically observed object switch cost/repetition benefit reflects faster reaction times in repetition updates (white symbols) than in switch updates (gray symbols). See the text for further details

Mentions: We tested the three hypotheses raised above, investigating the relation between perceptual attention and attention in WM; their predictions with regard to the RT patterns are illustrated in Fig. 3.Fig. 3


Selection in spatial working memory is independent of perceptual selective attention, but they interact in a shared spatial priority map.

Hedge C, Oberauer K, Leonards U - Atten Percept Psychophys (2015)

The patterns of data predicted by each of our three hypotheses—(i) the dependence hypothesis, (ii) the independence hypothesis, and (iii) the shared-map hypothesis—for Experiment 1 (top row) and Experiments 2a, 2b, and 2c (bottom row). The typically observed object switch cost/repetition benefit reflects faster reaction times in repetition updates (white symbols) than in switch updates (gray symbols). See the text for further details
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644201&req=5

Fig3: The patterns of data predicted by each of our three hypotheses—(i) the dependence hypothesis, (ii) the independence hypothesis, and (iii) the shared-map hypothesis—for Experiment 1 (top row) and Experiments 2a, 2b, and 2c (bottom row). The typically observed object switch cost/repetition benefit reflects faster reaction times in repetition updates (white symbols) than in switch updates (gray symbols). See the text for further details
Mentions: We tested the three hypotheses raised above, investigating the relation between perceptual attention and attention in WM; their predictions with regard to the RT patterns are illustrated in Fig. 3.Fig. 3

Bottom Line: Experiments 2a and 2b corroborated the independence of selection observed in Experiment 1, but showed a benefit to reaction times when the placement of the arrow cue was aligned with the locations of relevant objects in WM.Experiment 2c showed that the same benefit also occurs when participants are not able to mark an updating location through eye fixations.Together, these data can be accounted for by a framework in which perceptual selection and selection in WM are separate mechanisms that interact through a shared spatial priority map.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Tower Build, Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK. hedgec@cardiff.ac.uk.

ABSTRACT
We examined the relationship between the attentional selection of perceptual information and of information in working memory (WM) through four experiments, using a spatial WM-updating task. Participants remembered the locations of two objects in a matrix and worked through a sequence of updating operations, each mentally shifting one dot to a new location according to an arrow cue. Repeatedly updating the same object in two successive steps is typically faster than switching to the other object; this object switch cost reflects the shifting of attention in WM. In Experiment 1, the arrows were presented in random peripheral locations, drawing perceptual attention away from the selected object in WM. This manipulation did not eliminate the object switch cost, indicating that the mechanisms of perceptual selection do not underlie selection in WM. Experiments 2a and 2b corroborated the independence of selection observed in Experiment 1, but showed a benefit to reaction times when the placement of the arrow cue was aligned with the locations of relevant objects in WM. Experiment 2c showed that the same benefit also occurs when participants are not able to mark an updating location through eye fixations. Together, these data can be accounted for by a framework in which perceptual selection and selection in WM are separate mechanisms that interact through a shared spatial priority map.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus