Selective visual processing across competition episodes: a theory of task-driven visual attention and working memory.

Werner X Schneider
Author Information
  1. Werner X Schneider: Department of Psychology, Neuro-Cognitive Psychology, Bielefeld University, , PO Box 10 01 31, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany.

Abstract

The goal of this review is to introduce a theory of task-driven visual attention and working memory (TRAM). Based on a specific biased competition model, the 'theory of visual attention' (TVA) and its neural interpretation (NTVA), TRAM introduces the following assumption. First, selective visual processing over time is structured in competition episodes. Within an episode, that is, during its first two phases, a limited number of proto-objects are competitively encoded-modulated by the current task-in activation-based visual working memory (VWM). In processing phase 3, relevant VWM objects are transferred via a short-term consolidation into passive VWM. Second, each time attentional priorities change (e.g. after an eye movement), a new competition episode is initiated. Third, if a phase 3 VWM process (e.g. short-term consolidation) is not finished, whereas a new episode is called, a protective maintenance process allows its completion. After a VWM object change, its protective maintenance process is followed by an encapsulation of the VWM object causing attentional resource costs in trailing competition episodes. Viewed from this perspective, a new explanation of key findings of the attentional blink will be offered. Finally, a new suggestion will be made as to how VWM items might interact with visual search processes.

Keywords

References

  1. Neuroscience. 2006 Apr 28;139(1):201-8 [PMID: 16324792]
  2. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2005 Apr;15(2):183-7 [PMID: 15831400]
  3. Psychol Res. 2005 Jan;69(3):191-200 [PMID: 15597184]
  4. Psychol Rev. 1990 Oct;97(4):523-47 [PMID: 2247540]
  5. Science. 2008 Mar 14;319(5869):1543-6 [PMID: 18339943]
  6. Q J Exp Psychol. 1980 Feb;32(1):3-25 [PMID: 7367577]
  7. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1995;18:555-86 [PMID: 7605074]
  8. Prog Neurobiol. 2005 Jul;76(4):236-56 [PMID: 16257103]
  9. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Dec;19(6):1029-46 [PMID: 22847596]
  10. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Aug;17(8):391-400 [PMID: 23850263]
  11. Vision Res. 1996 Jun;36(12):1827-37 [PMID: 8759451]
  12. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 Sep 09;368(1628):20130063 [PMID: 24018725]
  13. Front Hum Neurosci. 2010 Mar 05;4:14 [PMID: 20224662]
  14. Vision Res. 2010 Jun 1;50(11):999-1013 [PMID: 20219518]
  15. Psychol Forsch. 1973 May 17;36(1):71-93 [PMID: 4725980]
  16. Percept Psychophys. 1995 Aug;57(6):787-95 [PMID: 7651803]
  17. J Vis. 2011 Jun 10;11(7):9 [PMID: 21665985]
  18. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 Sep 09;368(1628):20130054 [PMID: 24018716]
  19. Psychol Rev. 2005 Apr;112(2):291-328 [PMID: 15783288]
  20. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 Sep 09;368(1628):20130058 [PMID: 24018720]
  21. Neuropsychologia. 2011 May;49(6):1446-57 [PMID: 21146554]
  22. Psychol Rev. 2008 Oct;115(4):787-835 [PMID: 18954205]
  23. Hum Neurobiol. 1985;4(4):219-27 [PMID: 3836989]
  24. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004 Jun;30(3):519-37 [PMID: 15161384]
  25. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1995;18:193-222 [PMID: 7605061]
  26. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 May;39(3):760-72 [PMID: 22845068]
  27. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Jul;15(7):327-34 [PMID: 21665518]
  28. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Dec;33(6):1352-65 [PMID: 18085948]
  29. Trends Cogn Sci. 1997 Nov;1(8):291-6 [PMID: 21223931]
  30. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2010;33:1-21 [PMID: 20192813]
  31. Science. 1975 Mar 14;187(4180):965-6 [PMID: 1145183]
  32. Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Feb;24(1):87-114; discussion 114-85 [PMID: 11515286]
  33. Vision Res. 2000;40(10-12):1469-87 [PMID: 10788653]
  34. Behav Brain Sci. 1999 Aug;22(4):661-74; discussion 674-721 [PMID: 11301526]
  35. Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Jun;1(2):202-38 [PMID: 24203471]
  36. Percept Psychophys. 1987 Aug;42(2):105-13 [PMID: 3627930]
  37. Annu Rev Physiol. 2002;64:355-405 [PMID: 11826273]
  38. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Oct;1004:289-96 [PMID: 14662468]
  39. Psychol Rev. 1989 Jul;96(3):433-58 [PMID: 2756067]
  40. Cogn Psychol. 1992 Apr;24(2):175-219 [PMID: 1582172]
  41. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1988 May;40(2):201-37 [PMID: 3406448]
  42. Neuron. 2013 Apr 24;78(2):364-75 [PMID: 23562541]
  43. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Jun;35(3):787-807 [PMID: 19485692]
  44. J Neurophysiol. 1998 Dec;80(6):2918-40 [PMID: 9862896]
  45. Vision Res. 1995 Jul;35(13):1897-916 [PMID: 7660596]
  46. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Aug;10(8):382-90 [PMID: 16843702]
  47. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Apr;9(4):188-94 [PMID: 15808501]
  48. Nature. 1994 May 26;369(6478):313-5 [PMID: 8183369]
  49. Vision Res. 2004 Jun;44(12):1445-51 [PMID: 15066403]
  50. Psychol Res. 2007 Mar;71(2):126-39 [PMID: 16341546]
  51. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Feb;16(2):129-35 [PMID: 22209601]
  52. J Cogn Neurosci. 2001 Aug 15;13(6):766-85 [PMID: 11564321]
  53. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Feb;35(1):159-69 [PMID: 19170478]
  54. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Oct;19(5):779-819 [PMID: 22715024]
  55. Cogn Psychol. 1980 Jan;12(1):97-136 [PMID: 7351125]
  56. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1997 Apr;7(2):255-61 [PMID: 9142748]
  57. Nature. 2004 Apr 15;428(6984):748-51 [PMID: 15085132]
  58. Psychol Rev. 2008 Oct;115(4):836-63 [PMID: 18954206]
  59. Cogn Psychol. 1998 Jul;36(2):138-202 [PMID: 9721199]
  60. J Neurosci. 2013 May 8;33(19):8257-63 [PMID: 23658165]
  61. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992 Aug;18(3):849-60 [PMID: 1500880]
  62. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Sep;4(9):345-352 [PMID: 10962616]
  63. J Vis. 2011 May 27;11(5):5 [PMID: 21622729]
  64. Neuropsychologia. 2011 May;49(6):1401-6 [PMID: 21277880]
  65. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Nov;72(8):2168-75 [PMID: 21097860]
  66. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 Jan;59(1):2-27 [PMID: 16556554]
  67. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Oct;32(5):1243-65 [PMID: 17002535]
  68. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995 Feb;21(1):109-27 [PMID: 7707027]
  69. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2004 Dec;4(4):483-500 [PMID: 15849892]

MeSH Term

Attention
Attentional Blink
Eye Movements
Humans
Memory, Short-Term
Models, Psychological
Visual Perception

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0visualVWMcompetitionworkingmemoryattentionalnewattentionprocessingepisodeshort-termconsolidationprocesstheorytask-drivenTRAMbiasedtimeepisodesphase3changeegeyeprotectivemaintenanceobjectblinkwillgoalreviewintroduceBasedspecificmodel'theoryattention'TVAneuralinterpretationNTVAintroducesfollowingassumptionFirstselectivestructuredWithinfirsttwophaseslimitednumberproto-objectscompetitivelyencoded-modulatedcurrenttask-inactivation-basedrelevantobjectstransferredviapassiveSecondprioritiesmovementinitiatedThirdfinishedwhereascalledallowscompletionfollowedencapsulationcausingresourcecoststrailingViewedperspectiveexplanationkeyfindingsofferedFinallysuggestionmadeitemsmightinteractsearchprocessesSelectiveacrossepisodes:movements

Similar Articles

Cited By