Towards a better understanding of information storage in visual working memory.

Yaoda Xu
Author Information
  1. Yaoda Xu: Yale University.

Abstract

Chota and Van der Stigchel (this issue), Iamshchinina, Christophel, Gayet, and Rademaker (this issue), Lorenc and Sreenivasa (this issue), and Teng and Postle (this issue) each present a commentary regarding Xu (2020) where I conclude that sensory regions are nonessential for the storage of information in visual working memory (VWM). They argue instead that sensory regions are critical to VWM storage. Here I briefly reiterate some of the key evidence against this account, some of which has not been accounted by the four commentaries. I also provide a detailed reanalysis of why the main evidence supporting this account may be problematic. Collectively, existence evidence from human neuroimaging and TMS studies and that from monkey neurophysiology studies does not provide strong support for the sensory storage account of VWM. To form an accurate understanding of the distinctive role each brain region may play in perception and VWM as well as how they may interact to collectively support a VWM task, it is important that we properly survey and evaluate all the available evidence.

Keywords

References

  1. Elife. 2018 Nov 06;7: [PMID: 30394873]
  2. J Cogn Neurosci. 2017 Dec;29(12):1977-1994 [PMID: 28820674]
  3. Eur J Neurosci. 2009 Oct;30(7):1393-400 [PMID: 19788574]
  4. Annu Rev Vis Sci. 2018 Sep 15;4:311-336 [PMID: 29949722]
  5. Science. 2012 Nov 23;338(6110):1097-100 [PMID: 23118014]
  6. Science. 2008 Mar 14;319(5869):1543-6 [PMID: 18339943]
  7. Vision Res. 2016 Nov;128:53-67 [PMID: 27668990]
  8. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2016 Jun;25(3):151-156 [PMID: 27872517]
  9. J Neurosci. 2012 Sep 19;32(38):12990-8 [PMID: 22993416]
  10. eNeuro. 2016 May 03;3(2): [PMID: 27294194]
  11. eNeuro. 2020 Nov 30;7(6): [PMID: 33257529]
  12. J Neurosci. 2011 Mar 23;31(12):4484-95 [PMID: 21430149]
  13. J Neurosci. 2013 Apr 10;33(15):6516-23 [PMID: 23575849]
  14. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003 Apr;13(2):187-93 [PMID: 12744972]
  15. J Neurosci. 2012 Jan 4;32(1):4-11 [PMID: 22219265]
  16. Neuron. 2019 Jul 3;103(1):147-160.e8 [PMID: 31103359]
  17. Nat Neurosci. 2016 Jan;19(1):150-7 [PMID: 26595654]
  18. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Mar;22(3):192-193 [PMID: 29482822]
  19. Nature. 1998 Oct 1;395(6701):500-3 [PMID: 9774105]
  20. Curr Biol. 2018 Nov 5;28(21):3435-3440.e4 [PMID: 30344121]
  21. Trends Cogn Sci. 2017 Feb;21(2):111-124 [PMID: 28063661]
  22. J Neurosci. 1996 Aug 15;16(16):5154-67 [PMID: 8756444]
  23. Science. 2015 Jun 19;348(6241):1352-5 [PMID: 26089513]
  24. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:115-42 [PMID: 25251486]
  25. Nat Neurosci. 2019 Aug;22(8):1336-1344 [PMID: 31263205]
  26. Nat Neurosci. 2014 Apr;17(4):601-11 [PMID: 24584049]
  27. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005 Jun;5(2):144-55 [PMID: 16180621]
  28. J Neurophysiol. 2016 Sep 1;116(3):1488-97 [PMID: 27440243]
  29. Psychol Sci. 2009 Feb;20(2):207-14 [PMID: 19170936]
  30. Nat Neurosci. 2017 Dec;20(12):1770-1779 [PMID: 29184197]
  31. Nature. 2004 Apr 15;428(6984):751-4 [PMID: 15085133]
  32. Neuron. 2009 Sep 10;63(5):568-83 [PMID: 19755101]
  33. Nature. 2021 Apr;592(7855):601-605 [PMID: 33790467]
  34. Neuron. 2014 Jul 2;83(1):226-37 [PMID: 24991963]
  35. Psychol Rev. 2021 Mar;128(2):362-395 [PMID: 33570976]
  36. Nat Neurosci. 2012 Jan 15;15(2):315-20 [PMID: 22246435]
  37. Nat Commun. 2017 Jan 05;8:13804 [PMID: 28054544]
  38. Neuron. 2013 Apr 24;78(2):364-75 [PMID: 23562541]
  39. Nat Neurosci. 2018 Apr;21(4):494-496 [PMID: 29507410]
  40. Trends Neurosci. 2018 Nov;41(11):806-822 [PMID: 30115412]
  41. Front Syst Neurosci. 2015 Sep 03;9:123 [PMID: 26388748]
  42. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2014 Oct;76(7):2136-57 [PMID: 24634029]
  43. Trends Neurosci. 2017 Jun;40(6):328-346 [PMID: 28515011]
  44. Nat Neurosci. 2021 May;24(5):715-726 [PMID: 33821001]
  45. Science. 2016 Dec 2;354(6316):1136-1139 [PMID: 27934762]
  46. Vis cogn. 2021;29(7):401-408 [PMID: 34335071]
  47. Psychol Rev. 2017 Jan;124(1):21-59 [PMID: 27869455]
  48. Neuropsychologia. 2009 Jul;47(8-9):1790-8 [PMID: 19428411]
  49. J Neurosci. 2018 Jun 6;38(23):5267-5276 [PMID: 29739867]
  50. PLoS Biol. 2020 Jun 29;18(6):e3000769 [PMID: 32598358]
  51. Nat Neurosci. 2017 Jun;20(6):864-871 [PMID: 28414333]
  52. Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 Jul;19(7):394-405 [PMID: 26051384]
  53. J Cogn Neurosci. 2017 Jul;29(7):1226-1238 [PMID: 28253081]
  54. Nature. 2009 Apr 2;458(7238):632-5 [PMID: 19225460]
  55. Vis cogn. 2020;28(5-8):433-446 [PMID: 33841024]
  56. J Neurosci. 2018 May 2;38(18):4357-4366 [PMID: 29636395]
  57. Trends Cogn Sci. 2017 Oct;21(10):794-815 [PMID: 28774684]

Grants

  1. R01 EY022355/NEI NIH HHS
  2. R01 EY030854/NEI NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0VWMissuestoragevisualevidencesensoryworkingmemoryaccountmayregionsinformationprovidestudiessupportunderstandingChotaVanderStigchelIamshchininaChristophelGayetRademakerLorencSreenivasaTengPostlepresentcommentaryregardingXu2020concludenonessentialargueinsteadcriticalbrieflyreiteratekeyaccountedfourcommentariesalsodetailedreanalysismainsupportingproblematicCollectivelyexistencehumanneuroimagingTMSmonkeyneurophysiologystrongformaccuratedistinctiverolebrainregionplayperceptionwellinteractcollectivelytaskimportantproperlysurveyevaluateavailableTowardsbetterattentionearlyareasfMRIposteriorparietalcortex

Similar Articles

Cited By