The Rejection Template of Working Memory Operates after Attention Capture

Abstract

Although scientists know that information stored in working memory guides visual attention, how this is accomplished is still under debate. Specifically, there is a dispute between the Biased Competition Model and Visual Attention Theory. The current study used two experiments to resolve this controversy based on previous research. Experiment 1 found that although inverse efficiency scores for High and Low numbers of memory distractors were both longer than the Baseline (no memory distractors), they did not significantly differ from each other. This indicated that memory might guide attention via a capture-then-global-inhibition process. Experiment 2 addressed the possibility that the findings resulted from the time needed to reject the interfering objects by requiring both memory-matching and memory-mismatching conditions to be rejected under a highlighted target. This result showed that the memory-matching condition resulted in longer search times than the memory-mismatching condition, indicating an attention-capture effect based on working memory. Together, the two experiments support the idea that when multiple memory-matching distractors in a search array first capture an individual's attention, it then acts as a template that allows the individual to suppress all interfering items that containing memory information holds. This study supports the Biased Competition Model early on in visual search. However, the late stage of visual search supports the Visual Attention Theory. These advance our knowledge regarding the relationship between working memory content and attention.

Keywords: attention capture; attention suppression; biased competition model; visual attention theory; working memory.

Figure 1

Trial structure of the dual-task paradigm. In this example, there are two kinds of items (non-target items and target items) in the search array. The non-target items share the same color and shape as the memory item and occur only in the memory distraction trials (High or Low) but not in the Baseline trials. The target appeared only inside the target items. The paradigm consisted of three different types of trials.

Figure 2

Inverse efficiency (by dividing the mean correct RTs by the proportion of correct responses) across conditions in Experiment 1. *** indicates p < 0.001; ** indicates 0.001 < p < 0.01; N.S. indicates p > 0.1.

Figure 3

Trial structure of the dual-task paradigm in Experiment 2.

Figure 4

Inverse efficiency for the three conditions. Error bars are SEM. * indicates p < 0.05; *** indicates p < 0.001; N.S. indicates p > 0.1.