The effects of sequential attention shifts within visual working memory

19Citations
Citations of this article
69Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Previous studies have shown conflicting data as to whether it is possible to sequentially shift spatial attention among visual working memory (VWM) representations. The present study investigated this issue by asynchronously presenting attentional cues during the retention interval of a change detection task. In particular, we focused on two types of sequential attention shifts: 1) orienting attention to one location, and then withdrawing attention from it, and 2) switching the focus of attention from one location to another. In Experiment 1, a withdrawal cue was presented after a spatial retro-cue to measure the effect of withdrawing attention. The withdrawal cue significantly reduced the cost of invalid spatial cues, but surprisingly, did not attenuate the benefit of valid spatial cues. This indicates that the withdrawal cue only triggered the activation of facilitative components but not inhibitory components of attention. In Experiment 2, two spatial retro-cues were presented successively to examine the effect of switching the focus of attention. We observed benefits of both the first and second cues in sequential cueing, indicating that participants were able to reorient attention from one location to another within VWM, and the reallocation of attention did not attenuate memory at the first cued location. In Experiment 3, we found that reducing the validity of the preceding spatial cue did lead to a significant reduction in its benefit. However, performance at the first-cued location was still better than the neutral baseline or performance at the uncued locations, indicating that the first cue benefit might have been preserved both partially under automatic control and partially under voluntary control. Our findings revealed new properties of dynamic attentional control in VWM maintenance.

Figures

  • FIGURE 1 | Example trials for the four cue type conditions in Experiment 1. (A)The “single shift + early probe” (SE) condition. (B)The “single shift + late probe” (SL) condition. (C)The withdrawal condition. (D)The neutral condition.
  • FIGURE 2 | Schematic picture of the stimulus sequence between memory array offset and probe onset for each cue type condition in Experiment 1.
  • Table 1 | Mean hit rates and mean false alarm rates for each condition in Experiment 1 (Standard errors are shown in parentheses).
  • FIGURE 3 | Mean d ′ for each cue type condition in Experiment 1. Error bars represent standard errors.
  • FIGURE 4 |Trial sequence for the “double spatial cue” (DS) condition in Experiment 2 and 3.
  • Table 2 | Mean hit rates and mean false alarm rates for each condition in Experiment 2 (Standard errors are shown in parentheses).
  • Table 3 | Mean hit rates and mean false alarm rates for each condition in Experiment 3 (Standard errors are shown in parentheses).
  • FIGURE 5 | Mean d ′ for each cue type condition in Experiment 2. Error bars represent standard errors.

References Powered by Scopus

15020Citations
3967Readers
Get full text
Get full text
4851Citations
2364Readers
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Li, Q., & Saiki, J. (2014). The effects of sequential attention shifts within visual working memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(AUG). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00965

Readers over time

‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2405101520

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 37

77%

Researcher 9

19%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

2%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

2%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 44

81%

Neuroscience 7

13%

Engineering 2

4%

Philosophy 1

2%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0