title: Here today, gone tomorrow--adaptation to change in memory-guided visual search.
abstract: Visual search for a target object can be facilitated by the repeated presentation of an invariant configuration of nontargets ('contextual cueing'). Here, we tested adaptation of learned contextual associations after a sudden, but permanent, relocation of the target. After an initial learning phase targets were relocated within their invariant contexts and repeatedly presented at new locations, before they returned to the initial locations. Contextual cueing for relocated targets was neither observed after numerous presentations nor after insertion of an overnight break. Further experiments investigated whether learning of additional, previously unseen context-target configurations is comparable to adaptation of existing contextual associations to change. In contrast to the lack of adaptation to changed target locations, contextual cueing developed for additional invariant configurations under identical training conditions. Moreover, across all experiments, presenting relocated targets or additional contexts did not interfere with contextual cueing of initially learned invariant configurations. Overall, the adaptation of contextual memory to changed target locations was severely constrained and unsuccessful in comparison to learning of an additional set of contexts, which suggests that contextual cueing facilitates search for only one repeated target location.
authors.affiliation: Department Psychologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany. martina.zellin@psy.lmu.de
authors.forename: Martina
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Zellin
authors.forename: Markus
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Conci
authors.forename: Adrian
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: von Mühlenen
authors.forename: Hermann J
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Müller
mesh_terms: D000222:Adaptation, Physiological / Q000502:physiology*; D000328:Adult; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008568:Memory; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D021641:Recognition, Psychology / Q000502:physiology; D013997:Time Factors; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2010 Oct;117(4):1080-112
references.pmid: 21038974
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2012 Oct 18;3:409
references.pmid: 23087662
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009 Jan;71(1):76-81
references.pmid: 19304598
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011 Oct;73(7):2065-76
references.pmid: 21755420
references.citation: Vis cogn. 2007;15(1):1-11
references.pmid: 18725966
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1975 Sep;3(5):519-26
references.pmid: 24203874
references.citation: Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Oct 04;6:272
references.pmid: 23060776
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2010 Mar;74(2):138-51
references.pmid: 19212781
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2009 Aug;33(6):1087-1116
references.pmid: 20574548
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009 Oct;71(7):1514-24
references.pmid: 19801612
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1998 Jun;36(1):28-71
references.pmid: 9679076
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2009 Mar;73(2):212-21
references.pmid: 19082622
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 May;4(5):170-178
references.pmid: 10782102
references.citation: J Vis. 2011 May 26;11(5):4
references.pmid: 21617025
references.citation: Brain. 2001 Jul;124(Pt 7):1417-25
references.pmid: 11408336
references.citation: Vision Res. 2009 Oct;49(21):2557-65
references.pmid: 19379769
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011 Oct;73(7):2077-91
references.pmid: 21691902
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Aug;33(4):798-815
references.pmid: 17683229
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010 Jan;63(1):108-35
references.pmid: 19544199
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010 Feb;63(2):216-25
references.pmid: 20094943
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012 Apr;38(2):439-52
references.pmid: 22201465
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2010;61:273-301
references.pmid: 19575617
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2009 Jun;196(2):253-61
references.pmid: 19466398
references.citation: Front Behav Neurosci. 2011 Mar 07;5:12
references.pmid: 21436877
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Mar;29(2):224-34
references.pmid: 12696811
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Jun;12(3):524-9
references.pmid: 16235640
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
references.pmid: 9176953
references.citation: Perception. 2011;40(7):822-9
references.pmid: 22128554
references.citation: Brain Res. 2006 May 23;1090(1):163-71
references.pmid: 16677617
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2008 Mar;36(2):403-15
references.pmid: 18426069
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:235-69
references.pmid: 14744216
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004 Aug;5(8):617-29
references.pmid: 15263892
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2011 Jul;75(4):279-89
references.pmid: 20725739
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
references.pmid: 9176952
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2011 Oct;49(12):3439-47
references.pmid: 21889947
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 2009 May;101(5):2218-29
references.pmid: 19073794
references.citation: Spat Vis. 2004;17(4-5):465-82
references.pmid: 15559114
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2003;50(2):124-30
references.pmid: 12693197
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1994 Mar;115(2):163-96
references.pmid: 8165269
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Jun;13(3):543-8
references.pmid: 17048744