Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity Predict Learned Control Over Attentional Capture

被引:17
|
作者
Robison, Matthew K. [1 ]
Unsworth, Nash [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oregon, Dept Psychol, Eugene, OR 97403 USA
关键词
working memory; attention control; attentional capture; visual search; EXECUTIVE CONTROL; SECONDARY MEMORY; FLUID INTELLIGENCE; SEARCH; TASK; MIND; INTERFERENCE; DISTRACTION; PERFORMANCE; ALLOCATION;
D O I
10.1037/xhp0000419
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Although individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) typically predict susceptibility to attentional capture in various paradigms (e.g., Stroop, antisaccade, flankers), it sometimes fails to correlate with the magnitude of attentional capture effects in visual search (e.g., Stokes, 2016), which is 1 of the most frequently studied tasks to study capture (Theeuwes, 2010). But some studies have shown that search modes can mitigate the effects of attentional capture (Leber & Egeth, 2006). Therefore, the present study examined whether or not the relationship between WMC and attentional capture changes as a function of the search modes available. In Experiment 1, WMC was unrelated to attentional capture, but only 1 search mode (singleton-detection) could be employed. In Experiment 2, greater WMC predicted smaller attentional capture effects, but only when multiple search modes (feature-search and singleton-detection) could be employed. Importantly this relationship was entirely independent of variation in attention control, which suggests that this effect is driven by WMC-related long-term memory differences (Cosman & Vecera, 2013a, 2013b). The present set of findings help to further our understanding of the nuanced ways in which memory and attention interact.
引用
收藏
页码:1912 / 1924
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity Predict Topiramate-Related Cognitive Deficits
    Barkley, Christopher M.
    Hu, Zhenhong
    Fieberg, Ann M.
    Eberly, Lynn E.
    Birnbaum, Angela K.
    Leppik, Ilo E.
    Marino, Susan E.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY, 2018, 38 (05) : 481 - 488
  • [32] Interpolated retrieval effects on list isolation: Individual differences in working memory capacity
    Wahlheim, Christopher N.
    Alexander, Timothy R.
    Kane, Michael J.
    MEMORY & COGNITION, 2019, 47 (04) : 619 - 642
  • [33] Working Memory Capacity Depends on Attention Control, but Not Selective Attention
    Kotyusov, Alexander I.
    Kasanov, Dauren
    Kosachenko, Alexandra I.
    Gashkova, Anastasia S.
    Pavlov, Yuri G.
    Malykh, Sergey
    BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, 2023, 13 (02)
  • [34] A locus coeruleus-norepinephrine account of individual differences in working memory capacity and attention control
    Nash Unsworth
    Matthew K. Robison
    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2017, 24 : 1282 - 1311
  • [35] The role of working memory in the attentional control of pain
    Legrain, Valery
    Crombez, Geert
    Verhoeven, Katrien
    Mouraux, Andre
    PAIN, 2011, 152 (02) : 453 - 459
  • [36] Individual Differences in Working Memory Predict the Effect of Music on Student Performance
    Christopher, Eddie A.
    Shelton, Jill Talley
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2017, 6 (02) : 167 - 173
  • [37] Working memory capacity and the scope and control of attention
    Shipstead, Zach
    Harrison, Tyler L.
    Engle, Randall W.
    ATTENTION PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 2015, 77 (06) : 1863 - 1880
  • [38] Working memory capacity: Attention control, secondary memory, or both? A direct test of the dual-component model
    Unsworth, Nash
    Spillers, Gregory J.
    JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 2010, 62 (04) : 392 - 406
  • [39] Individual differences in working memory
    Jarrold, C
    Towse, JN
    NEUROSCIENCE, 2006, 139 (01) : 39 - 50
  • [40] Working Memory Capacity and Categorization: Individual Differences and Modeling
    Lewandowsky, Stephan
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2011, 37 (03) : 720 - 738