Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing the temporal dynamics and efficacy of task-relevant and task-irrelevant memory-driven attention

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Cognitive Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

People’s attention is well attracted to a stimulus matching their memory. For example, when people are required to remember the color of a visual object, stimuli matching the memory color powerfully capture attention. Remarkably, stimuli with the shape of the memory object, that is, irrelevant-matching stimuli were also found to capture attention. Here, we examined how task relevance affects the temporal dynamics and the strength of memory-driven attention. In the experiment, participants performed a visual search task while maintaining the color or shape of a colored shape. When participants were required to memorize the color of the memory sample, the shape of the sample stimulus is task-irrelevant feature and vice versa. Importantly, while a search item matching working memory in the task-relevant dimension was presented for one group of participants, an irrelevant-matching search item appeared for the other group of participants. Further, we varied stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the memory sample and search items. We found that relevant-matching stimuli captured attention regardless of whether the SOA was short or long. However, attentional capture by irrelevant-matching stimuli depended on the SOA; no memory-driven capture was observed at the shortest SOA, but significant capture was found at longer SOAs. Further, the capture effects by relevant-matching stimuli were greater than that of irrelevant-matching stimuli. These findings suggest both task-relevant and -irrelevant features in working memory affect the attentional selection in visual search task, but its temporal dynamics and strength are modulated by the task-relevance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Data availability statement

All data and analysis scripts are stored at the Department of Psychology, Chungam National University, and can be obtained by contacting the corresponding authors.

References

  • Baylis GC, Driver J (1993) Visual attention and objects: evidence for hierarchical coding of location. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19(3):451

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bisley JW, Goldberg ME (2010) Attention, intention, and priority in the parietal lobe. Annu Rev Neurosci 33:1–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brady TF, Konkle T, Alvarez GA (2011) A review of visual memory capacity: beyond individual items and toward structured representations. J vis 11(5):1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundesen C (1990) A theory of visual attention. Psychol Rev 97(4):523–547

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle NB, Woodman GF (2011) Automatic and strategic effects in the guidance of attention by working memory representations. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 137(2):217–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen S, Kocsis A, Liesefeld HR, Müller HJ, Conci M (2020) Object-based grouping benefits without integrated feature representations in visual working memory. Atten Percep Psychophys 1–18

  • Dalvit S, Eimer M (2011) Memory-driven attentional capture is modulated by temporal task demands. Vis Cogn 19(2):145–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis G, Holmes A (2005) The capacity of visual short-term memory is not a fixed number of objects. Mem Cognit 33(2):185–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delvenne J-F, Bruyer R (2006) A configural effect in visual short-term memory for features from different parts of an object. Quarterly J Exp Psychol 59(9):1567–1580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desimone R, Duncan J (1995) Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu Rev Neurosci 18(1):193–222

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Downing PE (2000) Interactions between visual working memory and selective attention. Psychol Sci 11(6):467–473

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G (2009) Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41(4):1149–1160

  • Fougnie D, Asplund CL, Marois R (2010) What are the units of storage in visual working memory? J vis 10(12):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuda K, Vogel EK (2009) Human variation in overriding attentional capture. J Neurosci 29(27):8726–8733

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gao Z, Yu S, Zhu C, Shui R, Weng X, Li P, Shen M (2016) Object-based encoding in visual working memory: evidence from memory-driven attentional capture. Sci Rep 6:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han SW, Kim M-S (2009) Do the contents of working memory capture attention? Yes, but cognitive control matters. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35(5):1292–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuer A, Schubö A (2016) Feature-based and spatial attentional selection in visual working memory. Mem Cognit 44(4):621–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung K, Han SW, Min Y (2020) Opposing effects of stimulus-driven and memory-driven attention in visual search. Psychon Bull Rev 27:105–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck SJ, Vogel EK (1997) The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature 390(6657):279–281

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Luck SJ (2008) Visual short-term memory. Vis Memory, 43–85

  • Ma WJ, Husain M, Bays PM (2014) Changing concepts of working memory. Nat Neurosci 17(3):347–356

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maxcey-Richard AM, Hollingworth A (2013) The strategic retention of task-relevant objects in visual working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 39(3):760–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morey RD, Rouder JN, Jamil T, Morey MRD (2015) Package ‘bayesfactor’. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BayesFactor/BayesFactor.pdf. Accessed 06 Oct 2015

  • Nie Q-Y, Müller HJ, Concia M (2017) Hierarchical organization in visual working memory: from global ensemble to individual object structure. Cognition 159:85–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’craven KM, Downing PE, Kanwisher N (1999) fMRI evidence for objects as the units of attentional selection. Nature 401(6753):584–587

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Olivers CN, Meijer F, Theeuwes J (2006) Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: visual working memory content affects visual attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32(5):1243–1265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce JW (2007) PsychoPy—psychophysics software in python. J Neurosci Methods 162(1):8–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rensink RA (2002) Change detection. Annu Rev Psychol 53(1):245–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelfsema PR, Lamme VA, Spekreijse H (1998) Object-based attention in the primary visual cortex of the macaque monkey. Nature 395(6700):376–381

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rouder JN, Morey RD, Speckman PL, Province JM (2012) Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. J Math Psychol 56(5):356–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala JB, Courtney SM (2009) Flexible working memory representation of the relationship between an object and its location as revealed by interactions with attention. Atten Percept Psychophys 71(7):1525–1533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soto D, Humphreys GW (2009) Automatic selection of irrelevant object features through working memory: Evidence for top-down attentional capture. Exp Psychol 56(3):165–172

    Article  Google 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):248–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel EK, Woodman GF, Luck SJ (2006) The time course of consolidation in visual working memory. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32(6):1436–1451

    Article  Google 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):363–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodman GF, Vogel EK (2008) Selective storage and maintenance of an object’s features in visual working memory. Psychon Bull Rev 15(1):223–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation grant funded by Korean government (NRF-2019S1A5A2A01041784).

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea, 2019S1A5A2A01041784, Yoonki Min.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Suk Won Han and Yoonki Min equally contributed to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Social Science, Chungnam National University, Daehak-ro 99, Daejeon, 34134, Korea

    Koeun Jung

  2. Department of Psychology, Chungnam National University, Daehak-ro 99, Daejeon, 34134, Korea

    Suk Won Han & Yoonki Min

Authors
  1. Koeun Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suk Won Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yoonki Min
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KJ: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing—Original draft preparation. SWH: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-Review and Editing, Supervision. YM: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-Review and Editing, Supervision.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Suk Won Han or Yoonki Min.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Handling Editor(s): Valerio Santangelo (University of Perugia); Reviewers: Siyi Chen (LMU Munich), Eduard Ort (University of Dusseldorf), Taosheng Liu (Michigan State University).

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 424 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jung, K., Han, S.W. & Min, Y. Comparing the temporal dynamics and efficacy of task-relevant and task-irrelevant memory-driven attention. Cogn Process 23, 299–308 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-021-01069-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-021-01069-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation