When memory is not enough: electrophysiological evidence for goal-dependent use of working memory representations in guiding visual attention.
Biased competition theory proposes that representations in working memory drive visual attention to select similar inputs. However, behavioral tests of this hypothesis have led to mixed results. These inconsistent findings could be due to the inability of behavioral measures to reliably detect the early, automatic effects on attentional deployment that the memory representations exert. Alternatively, executive mechanisms may govern how working memory representations influence attention based on higher-level goals. In the present study, we tested these hypotheses using the N2pc component of participants' event-related potentials to directly measure the early deployments of covert attention. Participants searched for a target in an array that sometimes contained a memory-matching distractor. In Experiments 1 to 3, we manipulated the difficulty of the target discrimination and the proximity of distractors, but consistently observed that covert attention was deployed to the search targets and not the memory-matching distractors. In Experiment 4, we showed that when participants' goal involved attending to memory-matching items, these items elicited a large and early N2pc. Our findings demonstrate that working memory representations alone are not sufficient to guide early deployments of visual attention to matching inputs and that goal-dependent executive control mediates the interactions between working memory representations and visual attention.
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240-7817, USA.
Nancy B
NB
Carlisle
Geoffrey F
GF
Woodman
D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D004192:Discrimination, Psychological; D004569:Electroencephalography / Q000379:methods; D005071:Evoked Potentials / Q000502:physiology*; D006040:Goals; D006801:Humans; D008570:Memory, Short-Term / Q000502:physiology*; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology
Psychol Sci. 2003 Nov;14(6):605-11
14629693
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Mar 21;103(12):4789-92
16537358
Psychol Rev. 2005 Apr;112(2):291-328
15783288
J Cogn Neurosci. 2009 Apr;21(4):760-75
18564048
Psychol Rev. 1990 Oct;97(4):523-47
2247540
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1991 Nov;17(4):891-901
1837302
Annu Rev Neurosci. 1995;18:193-222
7605061
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Oct;35(5):1275-91
19803636
Psychol Rev. 1989 Jul;96(3):433-58
2756067
Eur J Neurosci. 2009 Jul;30(2):307-17
19691812
Psychophysiology. 1976 May;13(3):277-8
1273235
Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(8):1282-9
16529778
J Cogn Neurosci. 2009 Jun;21(6):1081-91
18702589
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Oct;32(5):1243-65
17002535
Percept Psychophys. 2008 Jul;70(5):924-34
18613638
Psychol Sci. 2001 May;12(3):219-24
11437304
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992 Nov;18(4):1030-44
1431742
Cogn Psychol. 1997 Jun;33(1):64-87
9212722
Psychophysiology. 1994 May;31(3):291-308
8008793
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Feb;29(1):121-38
12669752
Psychol Rev. 2001 Apr;108(2):393-434
11381835
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005 Apr;31(2):248-61
15826228
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Jun;33(3):730-7
17563233
Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Sep;12(9):342-8
18693131
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Apr;32(2):423-42
16634680
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Oct;35(5):1292-302
19803637
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Apr;33(2):363-77
17469973
Vision Res. 1995 Jul;35(13):1897-916
7660596
Psychol Sci. 2000 Nov;11(6):467-73
11202491
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994 Oct;20(5):1000-14
7964526
Percept Psychophys. 1990 Dec;48(6):603-17
2270192
Nature. 1999 Aug 26;400(6747):867-9
10476964
Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Feb;14(1):148-53
17546745
Vision Res. 2006 Mar;46(6-7):1010-8
16257030