Advertisement

Cognitive Processing

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 117–123 | Cite as

Opposing effects of memory-driven and stimulus-driven attention on distractor perception

  • Suk Won Han
Short Communication

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Working memory Attention Memory-driven attention Stimulus-driven attention Distractor interference 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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).

References

  1. Arita JT, Carlisle NB, Woodman GF (2012) Templates for rejection: configuring attention to ignore task-irrelevant features. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 38(3):580–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Awh E, Jonides J (2001) Overlapping mechanisms of attention and spatial working memory. Trends Cogn Sci 5(3):119–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Awh E, Jonides J, Reuter-Lorenz PA (1998) Rehearsal in spatial working memory. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24(3):780–790CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoni H, Tsal Y (2010) Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention. Vis Res 50(13):1292–1298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Desimone R, Duncan J (1995) Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu Rev Neurosci 18:193–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. DiQuattro NE, Geng JJ (2011) Contextual knowledge configures attentional control networks. J Neurosci 31(49):18026–18035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Downing PE (2000) Interactions between visual working memory and selective attention. Psychol Sci 11(6):467–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Eimer M, Kiss M (2008) Involuntary attentional capture is determined by task set: evidence from event-related brain potentials. J Cogn Neurosci 20(8):1423–1433CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Geng JJ, Diquattro NE (2010) Attentional capture by a perceptually salient non-target facilitates target processing through inhibition and rapid rejection. J Vis 10(6):5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Giordano AM, McElree B, Carrasco M (2009) On the automaticity and flexibility of covert attention: a speed-accuracy trade-off analysis. J Vis 9(30):30CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Han SW (2015a) Working memory contents enhance perception under stimulus-driven competition. Mem Cognit 43(3):432–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Han SW (2015b) Working memory contents revive the neglected, but suppress the inhibited. Cognition 145:116–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Han SW, Kim MS (2008) Spatial working memory load impairs signal enhancement, but not attentional orienting. Percept Psychophys 70:916–923CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Han SW, Kim MS (2009) Do the contents of working memory capture attention? Yes, but cognitive control matters. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35(5):1292–1302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Han SW, Marois R (2014a) The effects of stimulus-driven competition and task set on involuntary attention. J Vis 14(7):14CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Han SW, Marois R (2014b) Functional fractionation of the stimulus-driven attention network. J Neurosci 34(20):6958–6969CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Kiyonaga A, Egner T (2014) The working memory Stroop effect: when internal representations clash with external stimuli. Psychol Sci 25(8):1619–1629CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuo CY, Chao HF (2014) Role of attentional tags in working memory-driven attentional capture. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 40(4):1301–1307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lavie N (1995) Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21(3):451–468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lavie N (2005) Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends Cogn Sci 9(2):75–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lavie N, Hirst A, de Fockert JW, Viding E (2004) Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. J Exp Psychol Gen 133(3):339–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Peirce JW (2007) PsychoPy–Psychophysics software in Python. J Neurosci Methods 162(1–2):8–13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Townsend JT, Ashby FG (1983) Stochastic modelling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyChugnam National UniversityDaejeonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations