Task-Irrelevant Features in Visual Working Memory Influence Covert Attention: Evidence from a Partial Report Task.

Rebecca M Foerster, Werner X Schneider
Author Information
  1. Rebecca M Foerster: Neuro-Cognitive Psychology & Centre for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF), & Cognitive Interaction Technology Cluster of Excellence (CITEC), Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 100131, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany. ORCID
  2. Werner X Schneider: Neuro-Cognitive Psychology & Cognitive Interaction Technology Cluster of Excellence (CITEC), Bielefeld University, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany.

Abstract

Selecting a target based on a representation in visual working memory (VWM) affords biasing covert attention towards objects with memory-matching features. Recently, we showed that even task-irrelevant features of a VWM template bias attention. Specifically, when participants had to saccade to a cued shape, distractors sharing the cue's search-irrelevant color captured the eyes. While a saccade always aims at one target location, multiple locations can be attended covertly. Here, we investigated whether covert attention is captured similarly as the eyes. In our partial report task, each trial started with a shape-defined search cue, followed by a fixation cross. Next, two colored shapes, each including a letter, appeared left and right from fixation, followed by masks. The letter inside that shape matching the preceding cue had to be reported. In Experiment 1, either target, distractor, both, or no object matched the cue's irrelevant color. Target-letter reports were most frequent in target-match trials and least frequent in distractor-match trials. Irrelevant cue and target color never matched in Experiment 2. Still, participants reported the distractor more often to the target's disadvantage, when cue and distractor color matched. Thus, irrelevant features of a VWM template can influence covert attention in an involuntarily object-based manner when searching for trial-wise varying targets.

Keywords

References

  1. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001 Mar;2(3):194-203 [PMID: 11256080]
  2. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2010 Aug;139(3):558-78 [PMID: 20677899]
  3. J Neurosci. 2012 Dec 5;32(49):17563-71 [PMID: 23223280]
  4. Vision Res. 2011 Dec 8;51(23-24):2356-61 [PMID: 21964327]
  5. Psychol Rev. 1990 Oct;97(4):523-47 [PMID: 2247540]
  6. Exp Psychol. 2009;56(3):165-72 [PMID: 19289358]
  7. J Vis. 2013 Feb 01;13(2):1 [PMID: 23378130]
  8. Psychol Sci. 2011 Mar;22(3):339-47 [PMID: 21270450]
  9. Vision Res. 2006 Mar;46(6-7):1010-8 [PMID: 16257030]
  10. Cognition. 2018 Mar;172:37-45 [PMID: 29223864]
  11. J Vis. 2013 Feb 18;13(2): [PMID: 23420420]
  12. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 Sep 09;368(1628):20130060 [PMID: 24018722]
  13. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Aug;17(8):391-400 [PMID: 23850263]
  14. Vision Res. 1996 Jun;36(12):1827-37 [PMID: 8759451]
  15. Front Syst Neurosci. 2018 Aug 17;12:37 [PMID: 30174593]
  16. Nature. 1999 Oct 7;401(6753):584-7 [PMID: 10524624]
  17. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2013 Feb;75(2):216-28 [PMID: 23143916]
  18. J Cogn Neurosci. 2019 Jul;31(7):1079-1090 [PMID: 30938591]
  19. Psychon Bull Rev. 1999 Sep;6(3):445-8 [PMID: 12198782]
  20. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005 Feb;134(1):73-92 [PMID: 15702964]
  21. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009 Oct;71(7):1525-33 [PMID: 19801613]
  22. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1995;18:193-222 [PMID: 7605061]
  23. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2019 May;45(5):645-658 [PMID: 30920252]
  24. Nature. 1997 Nov 20;390(6657):279-81 [PMID: 9384378]
  25. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Jul;15(7):327-34 [PMID: 21665518]
  26. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Oct;35(5):1275-91 [PMID: 19803636]
  27. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Apr;20(2):228-42 [PMID: 23233157]
  28. J Vis. 2009 Oct 15;9(11):16.1-16 [PMID: 20053079]
  29. Mem Cognit. 1994 Jan;22(1):1-13 [PMID: 8035679]
  30. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005 Apr;31(2):248-61 [PMID: 15826228]
  31. Psychol Rev. 1989 Jul;96(3):433-58 [PMID: 2756067]
  32. Cogn Psychol. 1992 Apr;24(2):175-219 [PMID: 1582172]
  33. Eur J Neurosci. 2009 Jul;30(2):307-17 [PMID: 19691812]
  34. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 Sep 09;368(1628):20130061 [PMID: 24018723]
  35. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2016 Jul;42(7):911-7 [PMID: 27123681]
  36. Cereb Cortex. 2019 Feb 1;29(2):529-543 [PMID: 29365078]
  37. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Oct;35(5):1292-302 [PMID: 19803637]
  38. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Apr;33(2):363-77 [PMID: 17469973]
  39. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2018 Sep;44(9):1368-1382 [PMID: 29723006]
  40. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Aug;10(8):382-90 [PMID: 16843702]
  41. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2020 Jul;82(5):2379-2392 [PMID: 32166644]
  42. Psychol Sci. 2000 Nov;11(6):467-73 [PMID: 11202491]
  43. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Feb;33(1):64-82 [PMID: 17311480]
  44. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012 Jun;38(3):580-4 [PMID: 22468723]
  45. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Oct 23;104(43):17186-91 [PMID: 17940037]
  46. J Vis. 2013 Feb 25;13(3): [PMID: 23444390]
  47. Mem Cognit. 2018 Feb;46(2):230-243 [PMID: 28975576]
  48. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014 Oct;40(5):1819-31 [PMID: 24999612]
  49. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1988 Nov;14(4):591-600 [PMID: 2974870]
  50. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2009 Oct;132(2):106-14 [PMID: 19233340]
  51. Sci Rep. 2016 Mar 09;6:22822 [PMID: 26956084]
  52. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Nov;72(8):2168-75 [PMID: 21097860]
  53. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Oct;32(5):1243-65 [PMID: 17002535]
  54. Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 21;8(1):9434 [PMID: 29930389]
  55. Percept Psychophys. 1987 Apr;41(4):385-92 [PMID: 3588236]
  56. Percept Psychophys. 2008 Jul;70(5):924-34 [PMID: 18613638]
  57. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1996 Nov;49(4):940-9 [PMID: 8962542]
  58. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014 Aug;40(4):1450-64 [PMID: 24730738]

Grants

  1. EXC 277/Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0attentiontargetcovertcolorcueVWMfeaturestemplatedistractormatchedvisualworkingmemoryparticipantssaccadeshapecue'scapturedeyescanfollowedfixationletterreportedExperimentirrelevantfrequenttrialsSelectingbasedrepresentationaffordsbiasingtowardsobjectsmemory-matchingRecentlyshowedeventask-irrelevantbiasSpecificallycueddistractorssharingsearch-irrelevantalwaysaimsonelocationmultiplelocationsattendedcovertlyinvestigatedwhethersimilarlypartialreporttasktrialstartedshape-definedsearchcrossNexttwocoloredshapesincludingappearedleftrightmasksinsidematchingpreceding1eitherobjectTarget-letterreportstarget-matchleastdistractor-matchIrrelevantnever2Stilloftentarget'sdisadvantageThusinfluenceinvoluntarilyobject-basedmannersearchingtrial-wisevaryingtargetsTask-IrrelevantFeaturesVisualWorkingMemoryInfluenceCovertAttention:EvidencePartialReportTaskattentionalcaptureinvoluntarytop-downcontrol

Similar Articles

Cited By