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
Average median reaction times for repetition (white) and switch (gray) updates for the single-arrow (N = 14; left) and three-arrow (N = 15; right) versions of the task in Experiment 1. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM corrected for within-subjects comparisons (Bakeman & McArthur, 1996)
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644201&req=5

Fig4: Average median reaction times for repetition (white) and switch (gray) updates for the single-arrow (N = 14; left) and three-arrow (N = 15; right) versions of the task in Experiment 1. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM corrected for within-subjects comparisons (Bakeman & McArthur, 1996)

Mentions: Participants’ median RTs were analyzed with a mixed 2 (cue number) × 2 (object switch condition) ANOVA. A significant effect was observed for cue number, F(1, 27) = 9.421, MSE = 0.122, p = .005. Participants were faster on average in the single-cue condition (M = 884 ms, SD = 198 ms) than in the three-cue condition (M = 1,166 ms, SD = 295 ms), indicating that, as intended, the three-arrow cue was substantially harder to process than the single-arrow cue. That increase in difficulty arose from the additional selection demand in the three-cue stimuli, implying a higher demand on perceptual attention by the three-arrow cue. Critically, the effect of switch condition was significant, F(1, 27) = 85.583, MSE = 0.03, p < .001, with participants performing repetition updates (M = 967 ms, SD = 265 ms) faster than switch updates (M = 1,092 ms, SD = 301 ms), despite the requirement to spatially shift perceptual attention from the location of the current FoA in WM between updates. Furthermore, the interaction between cue number and update type did not reach significance, F(1, 27) = 0.183, MSE = 0.003, p = .672, indicating that the additional attentional demand for discriminating the three-arrow cues did not impact on the object switch cost. As can be seen in Fig. 4, the magnitudes of the switch cost were very similar in the single-arrow (131 ms) and three-arrow (119 ms) conditions, and were of a similar magnitude to that observed in our previous work (162 ms; Hedge & Leonards, 2013).Fig. 4


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)

Average median reaction times for repetition (white) and switch (gray) updates for the single-arrow (N = 14; left) and three-arrow (N = 15; right) versions of the task in Experiment 1. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM corrected for within-subjects comparisons (Bakeman & McArthur, 1996)
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig4: Average median reaction times for repetition (white) and switch (gray) updates for the single-arrow (N = 14; left) and three-arrow (N = 15; right) versions of the task in Experiment 1. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM corrected for within-subjects comparisons (Bakeman & McArthur, 1996)
Mentions: Participants’ median RTs were analyzed with a mixed 2 (cue number) × 2 (object switch condition) ANOVA. A significant effect was observed for cue number, F(1, 27) = 9.421, MSE = 0.122, p = .005. Participants were faster on average in the single-cue condition (M = 884 ms, SD = 198 ms) than in the three-cue condition (M = 1,166 ms, SD = 295 ms), indicating that, as intended, the three-arrow cue was substantially harder to process than the single-arrow cue. That increase in difficulty arose from the additional selection demand in the three-cue stimuli, implying a higher demand on perceptual attention by the three-arrow cue. Critically, the effect of switch condition was significant, F(1, 27) = 85.583, MSE = 0.03, p < .001, with participants performing repetition updates (M = 967 ms, SD = 265 ms) faster than switch updates (M = 1,092 ms, SD = 301 ms), despite the requirement to spatially shift perceptual attention from the location of the current FoA in WM between updates. Furthermore, the interaction between cue number and update type did not reach significance, F(1, 27) = 0.183, MSE = 0.003, p = .672, indicating that the additional attentional demand for discriminating the three-arrow cues did not impact on the object switch cost. As can be seen in Fig. 4, the magnitudes of the switch cost were very similar in the single-arrow (131 ms) and three-arrow (119 ms) conditions, and were of a similar magnitude to that observed in our previous work (162 ms; Hedge & Leonards, 2013).Fig. 4

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