Prioritization within visual working memory reflects a flexible focus of attention

被引:19
作者
Sandry, Joshua [1 ]
Ricker, Timothy J. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Montclair State Univ, Psychol Dept, 1 Normal Ave, Montclair, NJ 07043 USA
[2] CUNY Coll Staten Isl, Staten Isl, NY USA
[3] CUNY, Grad Ctr, New York, NY 10021 USA
关键词
Visual working memory; Attention; Flexibility; Cognitive control; Distinctiveness; Prioritization; Motivation; Strategy; Reward; SHORT-TERM-MEMORY; DOPAMINERGIC MIDBRAIN; MONETARY INCENTIVES; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; IMMEDIATE RECALL; TARGET SELECTION; PRIORITY MAPS; TOP-DOWN; REWARD; INFORMATION;
D O I
10.3758/s13414-020-02049-4
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
When motivated, people can keep nonrecent items in a list active during the presentation of new items, facilitating fast and accurate recall of the earlier items. It has been proposed that this occurs by flexibly orienting attention to a single prioritized list item, thus increasing the amount of attention-based maintenance directed toward this item at the expense of other items. This is manipulated experimentally by associating a single distinct feature with a higher reward value, such as a single red item in a list of black items. These findings may be more parsimoniously explained under a distinctiveness of encoding framework rather than a flexible attention allocation framework. The retrieval advantage for the prioritized list position may be because the incongruent feature stands out in the list perceptually and causes it to become better encoded. Across three visual working memory experiments, we contrast a flexible attention theory against a distinctiveness of encoding theory by manipulating the reward value associated with the incongruent feature. Findings from all three experiments show strong support in favor of the flexible attention theory and no support for the distinctiveness of encoding theory. We also evaluate and find no evidence that strategy use, motivation, or tiredness/fatigue associated with reward value can adequately explain flexible prioritization of attention. Flexible attentional prioritization effects may be best understood under the context of an online attentional refreshing mechanism.
引用
收藏
页码:2985 / 3004
页数:20
相关论文
共 118 条
[1]   Reward-motivated learning: Mesolimbic activation precedes memory formation [J].
Adcock, R. Alison ;
Thangavel, Arul ;
Whitfield-Gabrieli, Susan ;
Knutson, Brian ;
Gabrieli, John D. E. .
NEURON, 2006, 50 (03) :507-517
[2]   Multiple high-reward items can be prioritized in working memory but with greater vulnerability to interference [J].
Allen, Richard J. ;
Ueno, Taiji .
ATTENTION PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 2018, 80 (07) :1731-1743
[3]   The attention habit: how reward learning shapes attentional selection [J].
Anderson, Brian A. .
YEAR IN COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE, 2016, 1369 :24-39
[4]   A value-driven mechanism of attentional selection [J].
Anderson, Brian A. .
JOURNAL OF VISION, 2013, 13 (03)
[5]   Value-driven attentional capture [J].
Anderson, Brian A. ;
Laurent, Patryk A. ;
Yantis, Steven .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2011, 108 (25) :10367-10371
[6]   Can Children Prioritize More Valuable Information in Working Memory? An Exploration Into the Effects of Motivation and Memory Load [J].
Atkinson, Amy L. ;
Waterman, Amanda H. ;
Allen, Richard J. .
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2019, 55 (05) :967-980
[7]   Are there multiple ways to direct attention in working memory? [J].
Atkinson, Amy L. ;
Berry, Ed D. J. ;
Waterman, Amanda H. ;
Baddeley, Alan D. ;
Hitch, Graham J. ;
Allen, Richard J. .
ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 2018, 1424 (01) :115-126
[8]  
Atkinson R.C., 1971, The nature of reinforcement, P66
[9]   Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy [J].
Awh, Edward ;
Belopolsky, Artem V. ;
Theeuwes, Jan .
TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES, 2012, 16 (08) :437-443
[10]   Time constraints and resource sharing in adults' working memory spans [J].
Barrouillet, P ;
Bernardin, S ;
Camos, V .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL, 2004, 133 (01) :83-100