Precision requirement of working memory representations influences attentional guidance

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00694

Abstract

Abstract:

Previous studies demonstrated that the allocation of working memory (WM) resources contributes to attentional guidance when the WM representations match the targets of a visual search task. Could the allocation of WM resources also influence the attentional guidance when the WM representations match the distractors of a visual search task? Three behavioral and one event-related potentials (ERP) experiments were conducted by using the attention capture paradigm to explore the effect of precision requirement of WM representations on attentional guidance. The behavioral results showed that (1) only one memory item could guide attention under low precision requirement, and the item in high-active state captured more attention than that in low-active state; (2) two memory items could guide attention under high precision requirement, and the items in high- and low-active state captured comparable attention. The ERP results showed that during the maintenance phase of WM, items under high precision requirement elicited larger negative slow waves and late positive components than that under low precision requirement. During the search task, memory-matching distractors in high precision condition elicited larger N2 and smaller N2pc than non-matching distractors under high precision requirement, whereas memory-matching distractors and non-matching distractors elicited equal N2 and N2pc under low precision requirement. These results suggest that precision requirement of WM representations influences attentional guidance, and the underlying mechanism might be that maintaining WM representations under high precision requirement costs more resources than that under low precision requirement, and therefore the resource for searching targets declines and the attention captured by memory-matching distractors increases.

Key words: working memory representation, attentional capture, active state, distractor inhibition

CHE Xiaowei, XU Huiyun, WANG Kaixuan, ZHANG Qian, LI Shouxin. (2021). Precision requirement of working memory representations influences attentional guidance. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(7), 694-713.

Figures/Tables 9

Figure 1. CIELab Color Space (Zhang & Luck, 2008).

Figure 2. Examples of stimuli and procedure in Experiment 1~4. The first line illustrates the experimental procedure of suppression condition in Experiment 1. The second line illustrates the experimental procedure of verbal labeling condition in Experiment 1. The third line illustrates the experimental procedure in Experiment 2. The fourth line illustrates the experimental procedure in Experiment 3. The fifth line illustrates the experimental procedure in Experiment 4; in the single trial, one of the search task and memory test task are presented randomly. The textures in the squares represent different colors.

Table 1 The accuracy and mean RTs of the working memory task (M ± 95% CI) in Experiment 1~4

Experiment	Conditions	High precision requirement		Low precision requirement
Experiment	Conditions	Accuracy	RT (ms)	Accuracy	RT (ms)
Experiment 1
	Suppression	0.92 ± 0.03		0.98 ± 0.01
	Verbal labeling	0.94 ± 0.02		0.99 ± 0.01
Experiment 2
	High-priority	0.85 ± 0.04	699 ± 53	0.94 ± 0.02	611 ± 29
	Low priority	0.72 ± 0.07	878 ± 88	0.80 ± 0.05	755 ± 61
Experiment 3
	1 memory item	0.92 ± 0.02		0.99 ± 0.01
	2 memory items	0.76 ± 0.04		0.87 ± 0.03
Experiment 4
		0.89 ± 0.03		0.98 ± 0.01

Table 2 The accuracy and mean RTs of visual search task (M ± 95% CI) in Experiment 1~4

Experiment	Conditions	Match-condition	High precision requirement		Low precision requirements
Experiment	Conditions	Match-condition	Accuracy	RT (ms)	Accuracy	RT (ms)
Experiment 1
	Suppression	Baseline	0.98 ± 0.02	440 ± 91	0.99 ± 0.01	438 ± 110
		Nonmatching	0.97 ± 0.02	475 ± 83	0.98 ± 0.01	470 ± 99
		Matching	0.98 ± 0.02	543 ± 88	0.98 ± 0.02	492 ± 103
	Verbal labeling	Baseline	0.99 ± 0.01	418 ± 75	0.99 ± 0.01	430 ± 81
		Nonmatching	0.98 ± 0.01	450 ± 66	0.98 ± 0.01	468 ± 76
		Matching	0.98 ± 0.01	547 ± 75	0.98 ± 0.01	517 ± 78
Experiment 2
		Baseline	0.99 ± 0.01	554 ± 138	0.99 ± 0.01	514 ± 113
		Nonmatching	0.97 ± 0.02	577 ± 121	0.98 ± 0.02	570 ± 102
		High-priority matching	0.98 ± 0.01	614 ± 123	0.99 ± 0.01	610 ± 103
		Low-priority matching	0.97 ± 0.02	630 ± 127	0.98 ± 0.01	574 ± 108
Experiment 3
	1 memory item	Baseline	0.97 ± 0.02	470 ± 128	0.97 ± 0.02	471 ± 132
		Match-0	0.98 ± 0.02	523 ± 119	0.95 ± 0.02	488 ± 109
		Match-1	0.97 ± 0.02	565 ± 108	0.97 ± 0.02	554 ± 123
	2 memory items	Baseline	0.98 ± 0.02	480 ± 132	0.97 ± 0.02	477 ± 125
		Match-0	0.98 ± 0.01	492 ± 111	0.98 ± 0.01	498 ± 116
		Match-1	0.98 ± 0.02	544 ± 116	0.96 ± 0.02	500 ± 99
		Match-2	0.98 ± 0.01	593 ± 111	0.98 ± 0.01	541 ± 117
Experiment 4
		Baseline	0.96 ± 0.03	755 ± 51	0.98 ± 0.01	756 ± 48
		Nonmatching	0.96 ± 0.03	747 ± 42	0.98 ± 0.02	755 ± 48
		Matching	0.95 ± 0.02	817 ± 47	0.96 ± 0.02	803 ± 51

Figure 3. WM-based capture effects under each condition In Experiment 1~3. Figure A shows the result of Experiment 1, Figure B shows the result of Experiment 2, Figure C shows the result of Experiment 3. Error bars indicates 95% confidence interval, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. H-P requirement: high precision requirement; L-P requirement: low precision requirement; M1-1: memory-1/match-1; M2-1: memory-2/match-1; M2-2: memory-2/match-2.

Figure 4. NSW in each condition of Experiment 4. Grey area represents time window of 600~1000 ms. H-P requirement: high precision requirement; L-P requirement: low precision requirement.

Figure 5. LPC in each condition of Experiment 4. Grey area represents time window of 450~1000 ms. H-P requirement: high precision requirement; L-P requirement: low precision requirement.

Figure 6. N2 in each condition of Experiment 4. Figure A shows N2 waveform at Fz, FCz and Cz electrodes under high precision requirement; Figure B shows N2 waveform at Fz, FCz and Cz electrodes under low precision requirement; Figure C shows the scale of N2 waveforms; Figure D shows the mean amplitude of N2 in each condition. Error bars indicates 95% confidence interval, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. H-P requirement: high precision requirement; L-P requirement: low precision requirement.

Figure 7. N2pc in each condition of Experiment 4, Figure A shows the ERPs obtained in response to search displays at electrodes PO7/PO8 contralateral and ipsilateral to the side of the targets, and the N2pc waveforms under high precision requirement; Figure B shows the ERPs obtained in response to search displays at electrodes PO7/PO8 contralateral and ipsilateral to the side of the targets, and the N2pc waveforms under low precision requirement; Figure C shows the scale of N2pc waveforms; Figure D shows the mean amplitude of N2pc in each condition. Error bars indicates 95% confidence interval, **p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. H-P requirement: high precision requirement; L-P requirement: low precision requirement.

References 55

[1]	Al-Aidroos, N., Emrich, S. M., Ferber, S., & Pratt, J. (2012). Visual working memory supports the inhibition of previously processed information: Evidence from preview search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 643-663. doi: 10.1037/h0061442 URL
[2]	Arita, J. T., Carlisle, N. B., & Woodman, G. F. (2012). Templates for rejection: Configuring attention to ignore task-irrelevant features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 580-584. doi: 10.1037/a0027885 URL
[3]	Bae, G. Y., & Luck, S. J. (2017). Interactions between visual working memory representations. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(8), 2376-2395.
[4]	Bays, P. M., & Husain, M. (2008). Dynamic shifts of limited working memory resources in human vision. Science, 321(5890), 851-854. doi: 10.1126/science.1158023 URL
[5]	Beck, V. M., & Hollingworth, A. (2017). Competition in saccade target selection reveals attentional guidance by simultaneously active working memory representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(2), 225-230. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000306 URL
[6]	Beck, V. M., Hollingworth, A., & Luck, S. J. (2012). Simultaneous control of attention by multiple working memory representations. Psychological Science, 23(8), 887-898. doi: 10.1177/0956797612439068 URL
[7]	Berggren, N., & Eimer, M. (2018). Object-based target templates guide attention during visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(9), 1368-1382. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000541 URL
[8]	Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychology Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 URL
[9]	Cowan, N. (2011). The focus of attention as observed in visual working memory tasks: Making sense of competing claims. Neuropsychologia, 49(6), 1401-1406. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.01.035 URL
[10]	Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18(1), 193-222. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205 URL
[11]	Downing, P., & Dodds, C. (2004). Competition in visual working memory for control of search. Visual Cognition, 11(6), 689-703. doi: 10.1080/13506280344000446 URL
[12]	Dube, B., & Al-Aidroos, N. (2019). Distinct prioritization of visual working memory representations for search and for recall. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(5), 1253-1261.
[13]	Dube, B., Basciano, A., Emrich, S. M., & Al-Aidroos, N. (2016). Visual working memory simultaneously guides facilitation and inhibition during visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(5), 1232-1244. doi: 10.3758/s13414-016-1105-8 URL
[14]	Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96(3), 433-458. pmid: 2756067
[15]	Eimer, M. (1996). The N2pc component as an indicator of attentional selectivity. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 99(3), 225-234. pmid: 8862112
[16]	Emrich, S. M., Al-Aidroos, N., Pratt, J., & Ferber, S. (2010). Finding memory in search: The effect of visual working memory load on visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(8), 1457-1466. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.483768 URL
[17]	Ester, E. F., Anderson, D. E., Serences, J. T., & Awh, E. (2013). A neural measure of precision in visual working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(5), 754-761. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00357 URL
[18]	Fan, L. X., Sun, M. D., Xu, M. S., Li, Z. A., Diao, L. T., & Zhang, X. M. (2019). Multiple representations in visual working memory simultaneously guide attention: The type of memory-matching representation matters. Acta Psychologica, 192, 126-137. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.11.005 URL
[19]	Feredoes, E., Heinen, K., Weiskopf, N., Ruff, C., & Driver, J. (2011). Causal evidence for frontal involvement in memory target maintenance by posterior brain areas during distracter interference of visual working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(42), 17510-17515. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1106439108 URL
[20]	Gao, Z. F., Ding, X. W., Yang, T., Liang, J. Y., & Shui, R. (2013). Coarse-to-fine construction for high-resolution representation in visual working memory. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e57913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057913 URL
[21]	Gao, Z. F., Xu, X. T., Chen, Z. B., Yin, J., Shen, M. W., & Shui, R. (2011). Contralateral delay activity tracks object identity information in visual short term memory. Brain Research, 1406, 30-42. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.06.049 URL
[22]	Gunseli, E., Meeter, M., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2014). Is a search template an ordinary working memory? Comparing electrophysiological markers of working memory maintenance for visual search and recognition. Neuropsychologia, 60, 29-38. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.05.012 pmid: 24878275
[23]	He, X., Zhang, W. W., Li, C. H., & Guo, C. Y. (2015). Precision requirements do not affect the allocation of visual working memory capacity. Brain Research, 1602, 136-143. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.01.028 URL
[24]	Heil, M., Osman, A., Wiegelmann, J., Rolke, B., & Hennighausen, E. (2000). N200 in the Eriksen-task: Inhibitory executive process? Journal of Psychophysiology, 14(4), 218-225. doi: 10.1027//0269-8803.14.4.218 URL
[25]	Hitch, G. J., Allen, R. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2020). Attention and binding in visual working memory: Two forms of attention and two kinds of buffer storage. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(1), 280-293. doi: 10.3758/s13414-019-01837-x URL
[26]	Hollingworth, A., & Beck, V. M. (2016). Memory-based attention capture when multiple items are maintained in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(7), 911-917. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000230 URL
[27]	Houtkamp, R., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2009). Matching of visual input to only one item at any one time. Psychological Research PRPF, 73(3), 317-326.
[28]	Hu, Y. M., Allen, R. J., Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (2016). Executive control of stimulus-driven and goal-directed attention in visual working memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(7), 2164-2175. doi: 10.3758/s13414-016-1106-7 URL
[29]	Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort (Vol. 1063). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[30]	Kanske, P., & Kotz, S. A. (2010). Modulation of early conflict processing: N200 responses to emotional words in a flanker task. Neuropsychologia, 48(12), 3661-3664. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.07.021 URL
[31]	Kerzel, D., & Witzel, C. (2019). The allocation of resources in visual working memory and multiple attentional templates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(5), 645-658. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000637 URL
[32]	Kursawe, M. A., & Zimmer, H. D. (2015). Costs of storing colour and complex shape in visual working memory: Insights from pupil size and slow waves. Acta Psychologica, 158, 67-77. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.04.004 URL
[33]	Li, C. H., He, X., & Guo, C. Y. (2015). The storage mechanism of multi-feature objects in visual working memory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(6), 734-745. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00734 URL
[34]	Li, S. X., Che, X. W., Li, Y. J., Wang, L., & Chen, K. S. (2019). The effects of capacity load and resolution load on visual selective attention during visual working memory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(5), 527-542. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00527 URL
[35]	Li, X. B., Ouyang, Z. Z., & Luo, Y. J. (2010). The effect of cognitive load on interaction pattern of emotion and working memory: An ERP study. In The 9th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (pp. 61-67). Beijing, China: IEEE Computer Society.
[36]	Luria, R., Sessa, P., Gotler, A., Jolicœur, P., & Dell'Acqua, R. (2010). Visual short-term memory capacity for simple and complex objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(3), 496-512. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21214 pmid: 19301998
[37]	Machizawa, M. G., Goh, C. C. W., & Driver, J. (2012). Human visual short-term memory precision can be varied at will when the number of retained items is low. Psychological Science, 23(6), 554-559. doi: 10.1177/0956797611431988 pmid: 22527526
[38]	Morcos, A. S., & Harvey, C. D. (2016). History-dependent variability in population dynamics during evidence accumulation in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 19(12), 1672-1681. doi: 10.1038/nn.4403 pmid: 27694990
[39]	Olivers, C. N. L. (2009). What drives memory-driven attentional capture? The effects of memory type, display type, and search type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(5), 1275-1291. doi: 10.1037/a0013896 URL
[40]	Olivers, C. N. L., Peters, J., Houtkamp, R., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2011). Different states in visual working memory: When it guides attention and when it does not. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(7), 327-334.
[41]	Ort, E., Fahrenfort, J. J., & Olivers, C. N. (2017). Lack of free choice reveals the cost of having to search for more than one object. Psychological Science, 28(8), 1137-1147. doi: 10.1177/0956797617705667 URL
[42]	Panichello, M. F., DePasquale, B., Pillow, J. W., & Buschman, T. J. (2019). Error-correcting dynamics in visual working memory. Nature Communications, 10(1), 3366. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11298-3 pmid: 31358740
[43]	Sawaki, R., & Luck, S. J. (2010). Capture versus suppression of attention by salient singletons: Electrophysiological evidence for an automatic attend-to-me signal. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(6), 1455-1470. doi: 10.3758/APP.72.6.1455 URL
[44]	Schurgin, M. W., Wixted, J. T., & Brady, T. F. (2020). Psychophysical scaling reveals a unified theory of visual memory strength. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1156-1172. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-00938-0 URL
[45]	Shen, M., Huang, X., & Gao, Z. (2015). Object-based attention underlies the rehearsal of feature binding in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(2), 479-493. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000018 URL
[46]	Soto, D., Heinke, D., Humphreys, G. W., & Blanco, M. J. (2005). Early, involuntary top-down guidance of attention from working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(2), 248-261. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.2.248 URL
[47]	Souza, A. S., & Skóra, Z. (2017). The interplay of language and visual perception in working memory. Cognition, 166, 277-297. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.038 URL
[48]	van Moorselaar, D., Theeuwes, J., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2014). In competition for the attentional template: Can multiple items within visual working memory guide attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1450-1464. doi: 10.1037/a0036229 URL
[49]	Wen, W., Hou, Y., & Li, S. (2018). Memory guidance in distractor suppression is governed by the availability of cognitive control. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(5), 1157-1168. doi: 10.3758/s13414-018-1511-1 URL
[50]	Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2007). Do the contents of visual working memory automatically influence attentional selection during visual search? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(2), 363-377. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.2.363 URL
[51]	Yang, P., Wang, M., Jin, Z. L., & Li, L. (2015). Visual short-term memory load modulates the early attention and perception of task- irrelevant emotional faces. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 490.
[52]	Zhang, W. W., & Luck, S. J. (2008). Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory. Nature, 453(7192), 233-235. doi: 10.1038/nature06860 URL
[53]	Zhang, W. W., & Luck, S. J. (2011). The number and quality of representations in working memory. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1434-1441. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417006 URL
[54]	Zhang, W. W., & Luck, S. J. (2015). Opposite effects of capacity load and resolution load on distractor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 22-27. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000013 URL
[55]	Zhao, Y. J., Kuai, S. G., Zanto, T. P., & Ku, Y. X. (2020). Neural correlates underlying the precision of visual working memory. Neuroscience, 425, 301-311. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.11.037 URL