It is well known that a match between working memory contents and a visual stimulus creates attentional bias toward the memory-matching stimulus. The present study investigated whether this memory-driven attentional bias exerts similar effects with conventional, spatial attention driven by a cue stimulus. Specifically, we examined how the effect of a distracting, task-irrelevant stimulus is modulated when attention was oriented toward the distractor in memory- and stimulus-driven manners. The results showed that significant interference by a distractor decreased when attention was allocated to the distractor in a memory-driven manner, whereas the distracter captured attention in a stimulus-driven manner exerted increased interference. By contrast, memory-driven attention brought an unattended stimulus into attentional focus, while stimulus-driven attention failed to do so. These results provide evidence that the mechanisms underlying working memory-driven and stimulus-driven attention are separable, pointing to the dynamic and flexible relationship between working memory and attention.
Working memory Attention Memory-driven attention Stimulus-driven attention Distractor interference
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (NRF-2017R1C1B5014936) and the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A5A2A02925551).
Graham KS, Scahill VL, Hornberger M, Barense MD, Lee AC, Bussey TJ et al (2006) Abnormal categorization and perceptual learning in patients with hippocampal damage. J Neurosci 26:7547–7554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Greene CM, Soto D (2014) Functional connectivity between ventral and dorsal frontoparietal networks underlies stimulus-driven and working memory-driven sources of visual distraction. Neuroimage 84:290–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Han SW (2015a) Working memory contents enhance perception under stimulus-driven competition. Mem Cognit 43(3):432–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
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(3):749–759CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Kiyonaga A, Egner T (2013) Working memory as internal attention: toward an integrative account of internal and external selection processes. Psychon Bull Rev 20(2):228–242CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Scalf PE, Torralbo A, Tapia E, Beck DM (2013) Competition explains limited attention and perceptual resources: implications for perceptual load and dilution theories. Front Psychol 4:243CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
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(2):248–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Soto D, Wriglesworth A, Bahrami-Balani A, Humphreys GW (2010) Working memory enhances visual perception: evidence from signal detection analysis. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 36(2):441–456CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Theeuwes J (1994) Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: selective search for color and visual abrupt onsets. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20(4):799CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Townsend JT, Ashby FG (1983) Stochastic modelling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
Tsal Y, Benoni H (2010) Diluting the burden of load: perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36(6):1645–1656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Woodman GF, Luck SJ (2007) Do the contents of visual working memory automatically influence attentional selection during visual search? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33(2):363–377CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar