Automatic and strategic effects in the guidance of attention by working memory representations

Abstract

Theories of visual attention suggest that working memory representations automatically guide attention toward memory-matching objects. Some empirical tests of this prediction have produced results consistent with working memory automatically guiding attention. However, others have shown that individuals can strategically control whether working memory representations guide visual attention. Previous studies have not independently measured automatic and strategic contributions to the interactions between working memory and attention. In this study, we used a classic manipulation of the probability of valid, neutral, and invalid cues to tease apart the nature of such interactions. This framework utilizes measures of reaction time (RT) to quantify the costs and benefits of attending to memory-matching items and infer the relative magnitudes of automatic and strategic effects. We found both costs and benefits even when the memory-matching item was no more likely to be the target than other items, indicating an automatic component of attentional guidance. However, the costs and benefits essentially doubled as the probability of a trial with a valid cue increased from 20% to 80%, demonstrating a potent strategic effect. We also show that the instructions given to participants led to a significant change in guidance distinct from the actual probability of events during the experiment. Together, these findings demonstrate that the influence of working memory representations on attention is driven by both automatic and strategic interactions.

Figure 1

Example trial with the memory-matching item as a distractor. Participants made a speeded button-press response to the target shape in the search array and an unspeeded response to the memory-test item. During the entire trial participants performed a concurrent articulatory suppression task to prevent verbal recoding of the memory item.

Figure 2

The derived RT costs and benefits from Experiment 1. The RTs are shown in terms of costs (invalid trial mean RT minus neutral trial mean RT) and benefits (valid trial mean RT minus neutral trial mean RT). Error bars for the costs and benefits represent the 95% between-subjects confidence intervals for the main effect of probability on costs and benefits, respectively.

Figure 3

Reaction time distributions from Experiment 1. Data points represent vincentized values averaging the responses of all subjects in a condition at each quantile. Solid lines are responses when the memory- matching item was the target, dashed lines are the responses when the memory-matching item was absent, and dotted lines represent responses when the memory-matching item was a distractor.

Figure 4

Memory-task accuracy from Experiment 1. Error bars represent 95% within-subjects confidence intervals.

Figure 5

The derived RT costs and benefits from Experiment 2. The RTs are shown in terms of costs (invalid trial mean RT minus neutral trial mean RT) and benefits (valid trial mean RT minus neutral trial mean RT). Error bars for the costs and benefits represent the 95% between subjects confidence intervals for the main effect of probability on costs and benefits, respectively.

Figure 6

Reaction time distributions from Experiment 2. Data points represent vincentized values averaging the responses of all subjects in a condition at each quantile. Solid lines are responses when the memory-matching item was the target, dashed lines are the responses when the memory-matching item was absent, and dotted lines represent responses when the memory-matching item was a distractor.

Figure 7

Memory-task accuracy from Experiment 2. Error bars represent 95% within-subjects confidence intervals.