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 (N = 16) in Experiment 2b for repetition (white) and switch (gray) updates, by the location of the arrow cue. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM corrected for within-subjects comparisons
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644201&req=5

Fig6: Average median reaction times (N = 16) in Experiment 2b for repetition (white) and switch (gray) updates, by the location of the arrow cue. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM corrected for within-subjects comparisons

Mentions: A 2 (object switch condition) × 4 (arrow location) repeated measures ANOVA was performed on participants’ median RTs. Because the arrow appeared more frequently in task-irrelevant than in task-relevant locations, a random sample of these task-irrelevant updates (equivalent to the average number of updates contributing to the other locations) was selected for switch and repetition updates. Group averages of the individual median RTs for the different cue locations are plotted in Fig. 6. A main effect of switch condition was observed, F(1, 15) = 20.186, MSE = 0.068, p < .001; as in Experiment 1, a cost of switching was observed, with participants responding to repetition updates (M = 965 ms, SD = 316 ms) faster than to switch updates (M = 1,172, SD = 426 ms). A main effect was observed for arrow location, F(3, 45) = 26.985, MSE = .005, p < .001: Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests indicated that the RTs for updates in which the arrow cue appeared in the old location (M = 983 ms, SD = 358 ms) were significantly faster than updates in which the arrow appeared in the new location (M = 1,050 ms, SD = 386 ms, p = .005), the passive location (M = 1,107 ms, SD = 391 ms, p < .001), or the non-updating-related (other) locations (M = 1,134 ms, SD = 415 ms, p < .001). RTs for updates in which the arrow appeared in the new location were significantly faster than RTs for updates in which cues appeared either in other locations (p = .002) or in the passive location (p = .011). The interaction of update type and cue location did not reach significance, F(3, 45) = 1.01, MSE = .004, p = .399.Fig. 6


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 (N = 16) in Experiment 2b for repetition (white) and switch (gray) updates, by the location of the arrow cue. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM corrected for within-subjects comparisons
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig6: Average median reaction times (N = 16) in Experiment 2b for repetition (white) and switch (gray) updates, by the location of the arrow cue. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM corrected for within-subjects comparisons
Mentions: A 2 (object switch condition) × 4 (arrow location) repeated measures ANOVA was performed on participants’ median RTs. Because the arrow appeared more frequently in task-irrelevant than in task-relevant locations, a random sample of these task-irrelevant updates (equivalent to the average number of updates contributing to the other locations) was selected for switch and repetition updates. Group averages of the individual median RTs for the different cue locations are plotted in Fig. 6. A main effect of switch condition was observed, F(1, 15) = 20.186, MSE = 0.068, p < .001; as in Experiment 1, a cost of switching was observed, with participants responding to repetition updates (M = 965 ms, SD = 316 ms) faster than to switch updates (M = 1,172, SD = 426 ms). A main effect was observed for arrow location, F(3, 45) = 26.985, MSE = .005, p < .001: Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests indicated that the RTs for updates in which the arrow cue appeared in the old location (M = 983 ms, SD = 358 ms) were significantly faster than updates in which the arrow appeared in the new location (M = 1,050 ms, SD = 386 ms, p = .005), the passive location (M = 1,107 ms, SD = 391 ms, p < .001), or the non-updating-related (other) locations (M = 1,134 ms, SD = 415 ms, p < .001). RTs for updates in which the arrow appeared in the new location were significantly faster than RTs for updates in which cues appeared either in other locations (p = .002) or in the passive location (p = .011). The interaction of update type and cue location did not reach significance, F(3, 45) = 1.01, MSE = .004, p = .399.Fig. 6

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