Search

Updating spatial representations in visual and auditory working memory relies on common processes, and the modalities should compete for attentional resources. If competition occurs, one type of spatial information is presumably weighted over the other, irrespective of sensory modality. This study used incompatible spatial information conveyed from two different cue modalities to examine relative dominance in memory updating. Participants mentally manoeuvred a designated target in a matrix according to visual or auditory stimuli that were presented simultaneously, to identify a terminal location. Prior to the navigation task, the relative perceptual saliences of the visual cues were manipulated to be equal, superior, or inferior to the auditory cues. The results demonstrate that visual and auditory information competed for attentional resources, such that visual/auditory guidance was impaired by incongruent cues delivered from the other modality. Although visual bias was generally observed in working-memory navigation, stimuli of relatively high salience interfered with or facilitated other stimuli regardless of modality, demonstrating the processing symmetry of spatial updating in visual and auditory spatial working memory. Furthermore, this processing symmetry can be identified during the encoding of sensory inputs into working-memory representations. The results imply that auditory spatial updating is comparable to visual spatial updating in that salient stimuli receive a high priority when selecting inputs and are used when tracking spatial representations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study examined whether observers are able to establish multiple attentional sets to concurrently monitor two different spatial locations. Observers identified a target letter in red or cyan among nontarget letters of other heterogeneous colours during a temporal feature search. A peripheral distractor display consisted of one item of either the same colour as the current target, and the other potential target colour, or an irrelevant colour that could never be the target. They identified an odd-ball colour letter among homogenous colours during a singleton search. The results revealed that observers maintained multiple attentional sets for detecting two singletons or for targets involving two (or three) features. However, they were unable to maintain a mixture of sets. Moreover, exposure to a distractor containing feature that corresponded to a feature of the current target was advantageous for target identification. The presence or absence of this set-specific capture depended on top-down knowledge and did not occur automatically in the singleton-detection stream. These results demonstrate a limitation in the flexibility of attentional sets. Although two singleton detections were possible, multiple attentional templates for a more complex attentional set could not be maintained concurrently when monitoring multiple rapid serial visual presentations. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Sustained attention plays an important role in adaptive behaviours in everyday activities. As previous studies have mostly focused on vision, and attentional resources have been thought to be specific to sensory modalities, it is still unclear how mechanisms of attentional fluctuations overlap between visual and auditory modalities. To reduce the effects of sudden stimulus onsets, we developed a new gradual-onset continuous performance task (gradCPT) in the auditory domain and compared dynamic fluctuation of sustained attention in vision and audition. In the auditory gradCPT, participants were instructed to listen to a stream of narrations and judge the gender of each narration. In the visual gradCPT, they were asked to observe a stream of scenery images and indicate whether the scene was a city or mountain. Our within-individual comparison revealed that auditory and visual attention are similar in terms of the false alarm rate and dynamic properties including fluctuation frequency. Absolute timescales of the fluctuation in the two modalities were comparable, notwithstanding the difference in stimulus onset asynchrony. The results suggest that fluctuations of visual and auditory attention are underpinned by common principles and support models with a more central, modality-general controller. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]