Attentional prioritisation and facilitation for similar stimuli in visual working memory.

Visual working memory (VWM) allows for the brief retention of approximately three to four items. Interestingly, when these items are similar to each other in a feature domain, memory recall performance is elevated compared to when they are dissimilar. This similarity benefit is currently not accounted for by models of VWM. Previous research has suggested that this similarity benefit may arise from selective attentional prioritisation in the maintenance phase. However, the similarity effect has not been contrasted under circumstances where dissimilar item types can adequately compete for memory resources. In Experiment 1, similarity benefits were seen for all-similar over all-dissimilar displays. This was also seen in mixed displays, change detection performance was higher when one of the two similar items changed, compared to when the dissimilar item changed. Surprisingly, the similarity effect was stronger in these mixed displays then when comparing the all-similar and all-dissimilar. Experiment 2 investigated this further by examining how attention was allocated in the memory encoding phase via eye movements. Results revealed that attention prioritised similar over dissimilar items in the mixed displays. Similar items were more likely to receive the first fixation and were fixated more often than dissimilar items. Furthermore, dwell times were elongated for dissimilar items, suggesting that encoding was less efficient. These results suggest that there is an attentional strategy towards prioritising similar items over dissimilar items, and that this strategy's influence can be observed in the memory encoding phase.

Attentional selection is a sufficient cause for visual working memory interference.

Visual attention and visual working memory (VWM) are intertwined processes that allow navigation of the visual world. These systems can compete for highly limited cognitive resources, creating interference effects when both operate in tandem. Performing an attentional task while maintaining a VWM load often leads to a loss of memory information. These losses are seen even with very simple visual search tasks. Previous research has argued that this may be due to the attentional selection process, of choosing the target item out of surrounding nontarget items. Over two experiments, the current study disentangles the roles of search and selection in visual search and their influence on a retained VWM load. Experiment 1 revealed that, when search stimuli were relatively simple, target-absent searches (which did not require attentional selection) did not provoke memory interference, whereas target-present search did. In Experiment 2, the number of potential targets was varied in the search displays. In one condition, participants were required to select any one of the items displayed, requiring an attentional selection but no need to search for a specific item. Importantly, this condition led to memory interference to the same extent as a condition where a single target was presented among nontargets. Together, these results show that the process of attentional selection is a sufficient cause for interference with a concurrently maintained VWM load.

Inhibition continues to guide search under concurrent visual working memory load.

It is well known that attention can be automatically attracted to salient items. However, recent studies show that it is possible to avoid distraction by a salient item (with a known feature), leading to facilitated search. This article tests a proposed mechanism for distractor inhibition: that a mental representation of the distractor feature held in visual working memory (VWM) allows attention to be guided away from the distractor. We tested this explanation by examining color-based inhibition in visual search for a shape target with and without VWM load. In Experiment 1 the presence of a distractor facilitated visual search under low and high VWM loads, as reflected in faster response times when the distractor was present (compared to absent), and in fewer eye movements to the salient distractor than the non-target items. However, the eye movement inhibition effect was noticeably weakened in the load conditions. Experiment 2 explored further, to distinguish between inhibition of the distractor color and activation of the (irrelevant) target color. Intermittently presenting single-color search trials that contained only either a target, distractor or a neutral-colored singleton revealed that the distractor color attracted attention less than the neutral color with and without VWM load. The target color, however, only attracted attention more than neutral colors under no load, whereas a VWM load completely eliminated this effect. This suggests that although VWM plays a role in guiding attention to the (irrelevant) target color, distractor-feature inhibition can operate independently.

Tuning to non-veridical features in attention and perceptual decision-making: An EEG study.

When searching for a lost item, we tune attention to the known properties of the object. Previously, it was believed that attention is tuned to the veridical attributes of the search target (e.g., orange), or an attribute that is slightly shifted away from irrelevant features towards a value that can more optimally distinguish the target from the distractors (e.g., red-orange; optimal tuning). However, recent studies showed that attention is often tuned to the relative feature of the search target (e.g., redder), so that all items that match the relative features of the target equally attract attention (e.g., all redder items; relational account). Optimal tuning was shown to occur only at a later stage of identifying the target. However, the evidence for this division mainly relied on eye tracking studies that assessed the first eye movements. The present study tested whether this division can also be observed when the task is completed with covert attention and without moving the eyes. We used the N2pc in the EEG of participants to assess covert attention, and found comparable results: Attention was initially tuned to the relative colour of the target, as shown by a significantly larger N2pc to relatively matching distractors than a target-coloured distractor. However, in the response accuracies, a slightly shifted, "optimal" distractor interfered most strongly with target identification. These results confirm that early (covert) attention is tuned to the relative properties of an item, in line with the relational account, while later decision-making processes may be biased to optimal features.

Fixation-related electrical potentials during a free visual search task reveal the timing of visual awareness.

It has been repeatedly claimed that emotional faces readily capture attention, and that they may be processed without awareness. Yet some observations cast doubt on these assertions. Part of the problem may lie in the experimental paradigms employed. Here, we used a free viewing visual search task during electroencephalographic recordings, where participants searched for either fearful or neutral facial expressions among distractor expressions. Fixation-related potentials were computed for fearful and neutral targets and the response compared for stimuli consciously reported or not. We showed that awareness was associated with an electrophysiological negativity starting at around 110 ms, while emotional expressions were distinguished on the N170 and early posterior negativity only when stimuli were consciously reported. These results suggest that during unconstrained visual search, the earliest electrical correlate of awareness may emerge as early as 110 ms, and fixating at an emotional face without reporting it may not produce any unconscious processing.

The locus of visual search's interference on visual working memory.

Visual attention and visual working memory (VWM) are interacting systems. Most research has been directed toward how a retained VWM load can influence visual search behavior. However, the relationship between the two is bidirectional. When performing a visual search while maintaining a VWM load, decreases in change detection accuracy are often seen. Woodman and Luck (2010) argued that this interference was due to the onset of the search display leading to disruption. The current work attempts to identify the exact component of visual search that leads to interference with VWM. Potentially interference could be due to an attentional component of the task or a procedural artifact of the dual-task paradigm. Over five experiments, different attentional tasks were completed in the retention period of a difficult change detection task. Memory interference was measured as accuracy decrements in these conditions compared to trials where no attentional task was completed. Over the five experiments, one factor was highlighted as a sufficient cause for interference: the addition of nontarget items in the attentional task. Procedural artifacts were ruled out as potential sources of interference including: response bindings, eye movements, nontarget variance, spatial shifts of attention, perceptual load, and the time it took to complete the attentional task. It is proposed that interference arises from the attentional selective process of choosing the target item out of the nontargets. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Eye movements reveal the contributions of early and late processes of enhancement and suppression to the guidance of visual search.

In visual search attention can be directed towards items matching top-down goals, but this must compete with factors such as salience that can capture attention. However, under some circumstances it appears that attention can avoid known distractor features. Chang and Egeth (Psychological Science, 30 (12), 1724-1732, 2019) found that such inhibitory effects reflect a combination of distractor-feature suppression and target-feature enhancement. In the present study (N = 48), we extend these findings by revealing that suppression and enhancement effects guide overt attention. On search trials (75% of trials) participants searched for a diamond shape among several other shapes. On half of the search trials all objects were the same colour (e.g., green) and on the other half of the search trials one of the non-target shapes appeared in a different colour (e.g., red). On interleaved probe trials (25% of trials), subjects were presented with four ovals. One of the ovals was in either the colour of the target or the colour of the distractor from the search trials. The other three ovals were on neutral colours. Critically, we found that attention was overtly captured by target colours and avoided distractor colours when they were viewed in a background of neutral colours. In addition, we provided a time course of attentional control. Within visual search tasks we observed inhibition aiding early attentional effects, indexed by the time it took gaze to first reach the target, as well as later decision-making processes indexed by the time for a decision to be made once the target as found.

The attentional template in high and low similarity search: Optimal tuning or tuning to relations?

The attentional template is often described as the mental representation that drives attentional selection and guidance, for instance, in visual search. Recent research suggests that this template is not a veridical representation of the sought-for target, but instead an altered representation that allows more efficient search. The current paper contrasts two such theories. Firstly, the Optimal Tuning account which posits that the attentional template shifts to an exaggerated target value to maximise the signal-to-noise ratio between similar targets and non-targets. Secondly, the Relational account which states that instead of tuning to feature values, attention is directed to the relative value created by the search context, e.g. all redder items or the reddest item. Both theories are empirically supported, but used different paradigms (perceptual decision tasks vs. visual search), and different attentional measures (probe response accuracy vs. gaze capture). The current design incorporates both paradigms and measures. The results reveal that while Optimal Tuning shifts are observed in probe trials they do not drive early attention or eye- movement behaviour in visual search. Instead, early attention follows the Relational Account, selecting all items with the relative target colour (e.g., redder). This suggests that the masked probe trials used in Optimal Tuning do not probe the attentional template that guides attention. In Experiment 3 we find that optimal tuning shifts correspond in magnitude to purely perceptual shifts created by contrast biases in the visual search arrays. This suggests that the shift in probe responses may in fact be a perceptual artefact rather than a strategic adaptation to optimise the signal-to-noise ratio. These results highlight the distinction between early attentional mechanisms and later, target identification mechanisms. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Classical theories of attention suggest that attention is guided by a feature-specific target template. In recent designs this has been challenged by an apparent non- veridical tuning of the template in situations where the target stimulus is similar to non-targets. The current studies compare two theories that propose different explanations for non-veridical tuning; the Relational and the Optimal Tuning account. We show that the Relational account describes the mechanism that guides early search behaviour, while the Optimal Tuning account describes perceptual decision-making. Optimal Tuning effects may be due to an artefact that has not been described in visual search before (simultaneous contrast).

Attending object features interferes with visual working memory regardless of eye-movements.

There is currently a debate about the relationship between feature-based attention (FBA) and visual working memory (VWM). One theory proposes that the 2 constructs should be synthesized into a single concept (Kiyonaga & Egner, 2013). In this unified theory, VWM is defined as attention directed toward internal representations that competes with attention for a shared limited resource. Contrary to this account, it has been reported that only overt attention shifts (saccades), but not covert attention shifts, interfere with VWM (Tas, Luck, & Hollingworth, 2016). However, covert attention may only have required spatial attention, not FBA, so that the lack of interference may be because of the fact that spatial attention does not interfere with VWM. The current experiment varied feature versus spatial attention and overt versus covert effects upon VWM performance, as measured with a change detection paradigm. Results across three experiments show that memory interference arises when objects features are attended, regardless of whether attention was directed overtly or covertly. In a fourth experiment we show that attending spatial information interferes with spatial working memory, whereas attending feature information does not. These findings demonstrate a dissociation between spatial attention and VWM, which leaves unified concepts of FBA and VWM intact. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).