title: A role for spatial and nonspatial working memory processes in visual search.
abstract: Searching a cluttered visual scene for a specific item of interest can take several seconds to perform if the target item is difficult to discriminate from surrounding items. Whether working memory processes are utilized to guide the path of attentional selection during such searches remains under debate. Previous studies have found evidence to support a role for spatial working memory in inefficient search, but the role of nonspatial working memory remains unclear. Here, we directly compared the role of spatial and nonspatial working memory for both an efficient and inefficient search task. In Experiment 1, we used a dual-task paradigm to investigate the effect of performing visual search within the retention interval of a spatial working memory task. Importantly, by incorporating two working memory loads (low and high) we were able to make comparisons between dual-task conditions, rather than between dual-task and single-task conditions. This design allows any interference effects observed to be attributed to changes in memory load, rather than to nonspecific effects related to "dual-task" performance. We found that the efficiency of the inefficient search task declined as spatial memory load increased, but that the efficient search task remained efficient. These results suggest that spatial memory plays an important role in inefficient but not efficient search. In Experiment 2, participants performed the same visual search tasks within the retention interval of visually matched spatial and verbal working memory tasks. Critically, we found comparable dual-task interference between inefficient search and both the spatial and nonspatial working memory tasks, indicating that inefficient search recruits working memory processes common to both domains.
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Imperial College London, <location>UK</location> UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, <location>London, UK</location>
authors.forename: Elaine J
authors.initials: EJ
authors.lastname: Anderson
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Imperial College London, <location>UK</location>
authors.forename: Sabira K
authors.initials: SK
authors.lastname: Mannan
authors.affiliation: UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, <location>London, UK</location>
authors.forename: Geraint
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Rees
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Imperial College London, <location>UK</location> School of Psychology, Cardiff University, <location>UK</location>
authors.forename: Petroc
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Sumner
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Imperial College London, <location>UK</location>
authors.forename: Christopher
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Kennard
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D053483:Eye Movement Measurements; D005260:Female; D005403:Fixation, Ocular / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008570:Memory, Short-Term / Q000502:physiology*; D010470:Perceptual Masking / Q000502:physiology; D010865:Pilot Projects; D011581:Psychological Tests; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology; D011930:Reaction Time; D013028:Space Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: dual processing; selective attention