Orienting attention in visual working memory requires central capacity: Decreased retro-cue effects under dual-task conditions
Tóm tắt
The retro-cue effect (RCE) describes superior working memory performance for validly cued stimulus locations long after encoding has ended. Importantly, this happens with delays beyond the range of iconic memory. In general, the RCE is a stable phenomenon that emerges under varied stimulus configurations and timing parameters. We investigated its susceptibility to dual-task interference to determine the attentional requirements at the time point of cue onset and encoding. In Experiment 1, we compared single- with dual-task conditions. In Experiment 2, we borrowed from the psychological refractory period paradigm and compared conditions with high and low (dual-) task overlap. The secondary task was always binary tone discrimination requiring a manual response. Across both experiments, an RCE was found, but it was diminished in magnitude in the critical dual-task conditions. A previous study did not find evidence that sustained attention is required in the interval between cue offset and test. Our results apparently contradict these findings and point to a critical time period around cue onset and briefly thereafter during which attention is required.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Astle, D. E., Summerfield, J., Griffin, I., & Nobre, A. C. (2012). Orienting attention to locations in mental representations. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 146–162.
Berryhill, M. E., Richmond, L. L., Shay, C. S., & Olson, I. R. (2011). Shifting attention among working memory representations: Testing cue types, awareness, and strategic control. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 426–438.
Chun, M. M., Golomb, J. D., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2011). A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73–101.
Dell’Acqua, R., & Jolicoeur, P. (2000). Visual encoding of patterns is subject to dual-task interference. Memory & Cognition, 28, 184–191.
Du, F., & Abrams, R. A. (2010). Endogenous orienting is reduced during the attentional blink. Experimental Brain Research, 205, 115–121.
Eimer, M. (1997). Uninformative symbolic cues may bias visual-spatial attention: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Biological Psychology, 46, 67–71.
Garavan, H. (1998). Serial attention within working memory. Memory & Cognition, 26, 263–276.
Green, C., Johnston, J. C., & Ruthruff, E. (2011). Attentional limits in memory retrieval – Revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1083–1098.
Griffin, I. C., & Nobre, A. C. (2003). Orienting attention to locations in internal representations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 1176–1194.
Hautus, M. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d’. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 27, 46–51.
Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291–345.
Healey, M. K., & Miyake, A. (2009). The role of attention during retrieval in working-memory span: A dual-task study. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 733–745.
Hollingworth, A., & Maxcey-Richard, A. M. (2013). Selective maintenance in visual working memory does not require sustained visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1047–1058.
Janczyk, M. (2013). Level-2 perspective taking entails two processes: Evidence from PRP experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1878–1887.
Janczyk, M., & Grabowski, J. (2011). The focus of attention in working memory: Evidence from a word updating task. Memory, 19, 211–225.
Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Wallmeier, G., & Kunde, W. (in press). Exceptions to the PRP effect? A comparison of prepared and unconditioned reflexes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition.
Janczyk, M., Wienrich, C., & Kunde, W. (2008). On the costs of refocusing items in working memory: A matter of inhibition or decay? Memory, 16, 374–385.
Jiang, Y., Olson, I. R., & Chun, M. M. (2000). Organization of visual short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 683–702.
Jolicoeur, P. (1999). Dual-task interference and visual encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 596–616.
Jolicoeur, P., Tombu, M., Oriet, C., & Stevanovski, B. (2002). From perception to action: Making the connection – A tutorial. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 558–586). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Landman, R., Spekreijse, H., & Lamme, V. A. (2003). Large capacity storage of integrated objects before change blindness. Vision Research, 43, 149–164.
Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (2006). Attentional limitations in doing two tasks at once: The search for exceptions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 89–93.
Logan, G. D., & Delheimer, J. A. (2001). Parallel retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 668–685.
Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1072–1090.
Makovski, T. (2012). Are multiple visual short-term memory storages necessary to explain the retro-cue effect? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 470–476.
Makovski, T., & Jiang, Y. V. (2007). Distributing versus focusing attention in visual short-term memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1072–1078.
Makovski, T., Sussman, R., & Jiang, Y. V. (2008). Orienting attention in visual working memory reduces interference from memory probes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 369–380.
Matsukura, M., Luck, S. J., & Vecera, S. P. (2007). Attention effects during visual short-term memory maintenance: Protection or prioritization? Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1422–1434.
Murray, A. M., Nobre, A. C., Clark, I. A., Cravo, A. M., & Stokes, M. G. (2013). Attention restores discrete items to visual short-term memory. Psychological Science, 24, 550–556.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19–45.
Pertzov, Y., Bays, P. A., Joseph, S., & Husain, M. (2013). Rapid forgetting prevented by retrospective attention cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1224–1231.
Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9, 74–80.
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.
Pratt, J., Radulescu, P., Guo, R. M., & Hommel, B. (2010). Visuospatial attention is guided by both the symbolic value and the spatial proximity of selected arrows. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1321–1325.
Rerko, L., & Oberauer, K. (2013). Focused, unfocused, and defocused information in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1075–1096.
Sperling, G. (1960). The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs, 74, 1–29.
Tanoue, R. T., & Berryhill, M. E. (2012). The mental wormhole: Internal attention shifts without regard for distance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(6), 1199–1215.
Tanoue, R. T., Jones, K. T., Peterson, D. P., & Berryhill, M. E. (2013). Pre- and retro-cueing differentially rely on prefrontal activations: A tDCS investigation. Brain Stimulation, 6, 675–682.
Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3–18.