Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 237, Issue 2, pp 503–509 | Cite as

The success of the representation maintenance affects the memory-guided search processing: an ERP study

  • Min Wang
  • Ping Yang
  • Zhenlan Jin
  • Junjun Zhang
  • Ling LiEmail author
Research Article
  • 68 Downloads

Abstract

Previous evidence showed that working memory (WM) contents can bias visual selection. However, less is known about how the WM effects change when the WM representation is not held successfully. Here, we investigated this problem using event-related potentials. Subjects maintained a color in WM while performing a search task. The color cue contained the target (valid) or the distractor (invalid). Subjects could either remember the color accurately (correct WM) or not (incorrect WM). An N2-posterior contralateral component and a sustained posterior contralateral negativity (SPCN) were recorded in the valid and incorrect WM condition, while only an attenuated SPCN was elicited in the valid and correct WM condition. No reliable lateralized components were found for the invalid trials. These findings suggest that the WM effects on visual search are affected by the resource interchange between WM and search processes.

Keywords

Visual search Working memory N2pc SPCN Competition Processing resources 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China projects (Grant numbers 61773092, 61473062, 61673087); the 111 Project (Grant number B12027); and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

Author contributions

MW, PY, ZLJ, JJZ and LL conceived and designed the experiments. MW and PY performed the experiments. MW and PY analyzed the data. MW wrote the main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Baddeley A (2003) Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nat Rev Neurosci 4:829–839.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Delorme A, Makeig S (2004) EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods 134:9–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eimer M, Kiss M, Press C, Sauter D (2009) The roles of feature-specific task set and bottom-up salience in attentional capture: an ERP study. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35:1316–1328.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eimer M, Kiss M, Nicholas S (2011) What top-down task sets do for us: an ERP study on the benefits of advance preparation in visual search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37:1758–1766.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Emrich SM, Al-Aidroos N, Pratt J, Ferber S (2009) Visual search elicits the electrophysiological marker of visual working memory. PLoS One 4:e8042.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gorgoraptis N, Catalao RFG, Bays PM, Husain M (2011) Dynamic updating of working memory resources for visual objects. J Neurosci 31:8502–8511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gosling SG, Astle DE (2013) Directing spatial attention to locations within remembered and imagined mental representations. Front Hum Neurosci 7:154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hilimire MR, Mounts JRW, Parks NA, Corballis PM (2011) Dynamics of target and distractor processing in visual search: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Neurosci Lett 495:196–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2011.03.064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hollingworth A, Matsukura M, Luck SJ (2013a) Visual working memory modulates low-level saccade target selection: evidence from rapidly generated saccades in the global effect paradigm. J Vis 13:4–4.  https://doi.org/10.1167/13.13.4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hollingworth A, Matsukura M, Luck SJ (2013b) Visual working memory modulates low-level saccade target selection: evidence from rapidly generated saccades in the global effect paradigm. J Vis 13:4.  https://doi.org/10.1167/13.13.4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang L, Pashler H (2007) Working memory and the guidance of visual attention: consonance-driven orienting. Psychon Bull Rev 14:148–153.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kiss M, Grubert A, Petersen A, Eimer M (2012) Attentional capture by salient distractors during visual search is determined by temporal task demands. J Cogn Neurosci 24:749–759.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kumar S, Soto D, Humphreys GW (2009) Electrophysiological evidence for attentional guidance by the contents of working memory. Eur J Neurosci 30:307–317.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06805.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mazza V, Turatto M, Umiltà C, Eimer M (2007) Attentional selection and identification of visual objects are reflected by distinct electrophysiological responses. Exp Brain Res 181:531–536.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1002-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mazza V, Turatto M, Caramazza A (2009a) Attention selection, distractor suppression and N2pc. Cortex 45:879–890.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2008.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mazza V, Turatto M, Caramazza A (2009b) An electrophysiological assessment of distractor suppression in visual search tasks. Psychophysiology 46:771–775.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00814.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mazza V, Dallabona M, Chelazzi L, Turatto M (2011) Cooperative and opposing effects of strategic and involuntary attention. J Cogn Neurosci 23:2838–2851.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2011.21634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oemisch M, Watson MR, Womelsdorf T, Schubö A (2017) Changes of attention during value-based reversal learning are tracked by N2pc and feedback-related negativity. Front Hum Neurosci 11:540.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Soto D, Heinke D, Humphreys GW, Blanco MJ (2005) Early, involuntary top-down guidance of attention from working memory. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:248–261.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.2.248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Soto D, Humphreys GW, Heinke D (2006) Working memory can guide pop-out search. Vis Res 46:1010–1018.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Telling AL, Kumar S, Meyer AS, Humphreys GW (2010) Electrophysiological evidence of semantic interference in visual search. J Cogn Neurosci 22:2212–2225.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Woodman GF, Luck SJ (2004) Visual search is slowed when visuospatial working memory is occupied. Psychon Bull Rev 11:269–274.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Woodman GF, Luck SJ, Schall JD (2007) The role of working memory representations in the control of attention. Cereb Cortex 17 Suppl 1:i118–i124.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Min Wang
    • 1
  • Ping Yang
    • 2
  • Zhenlan Jin
    • 1
  • Junjun Zhang
    • 1
  • Ling Li
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Key Laboratory for NeuroInformation of Ministry of Education, High-Field Magnetic Resonance Brain Imaging Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Center for Information in Medicine, School of Life Science and TechnologyUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina
  2. 2.Institute for Brain Research and RehabilitationSouth China Normal UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations