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]

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]

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]

When some distractors (old items) appear before others (new items) in an inefficient visual search task, the old items are excluded from the search (visual marking). Previous studies have shown that changing the shape of old items eliminates this effect, suggesting that shape identity must be maintained for successful visual marking. However, the contribution of top-down target knowledge to the maintenance of visual marking under shape change conditions has not been systematically examined. The present study tested whether the vulnerability of visual marking to shape change is contingent on observers' attentional set, by manipulating compatibility of the set and the domains in which the change occurs. The results indicated that visual marking survived shape changes when the observer's attentional set was consistent with critical features between the old and new items. This protection was observed when the set was based on explicit instructions at the beginning of the experiment, and when the task set was implicitly carried over from the previous task. These results suggest that top-down processes play a role in maintaining memory templates by enhancing the grouping and suppression processes during visual search, despite disruptive bottom-up signals. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Selective attention can be improved under conditions in which a high perceptual load is assumed to exhaust cognitive resources, leaving scarce resources for distractor processing. The present study examined whether perceptual load and acute stress share common attentional resources by manipulating perceptual and stress loads. Participants identified a target within an array of nontargets that were flanked by compatible or incompatible distractors. Attentional selectivity was measured by longer reaction times in response to the incompatible than to the compatible distractors. Participants in the stress group participated in a speech test that increased anxiety and threatened self-esteem. The effect of perceptual load interacted with the stress manipulation in that participants in the control group demonstrated an interference effect under the low perceptual load condition, whereas such interference disappeared under the high perceptual load condition. Importantly, the stress group showed virtually no interference under the low perceptual load condition, whereas substantial interference occurred under the high perceptual load condition. These results suggest that perceptual and stress related demands consume the same attentional resources. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Visual search for a unique target is impaired when a salient distractor is presented (attentional capture). This phenomenon is said to occur because attention is diverted to a distractor before it reaches the target. Similarly, perception of the second of two targets embedded in a rapid stream of nontargets is impaired, suggesting attentional deprivation due to the processing of the first target (attentional blink). We examined whether these phenomena emerge from a common underlying attentional mechanism by using correlation studies. If these phenomena share a common foundation, the magnitude of these deficits should show within-subject correlations. Participants (N = 135) revealed significant attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks. However, no significant correlation was found among these tasks. Experiment 2 (N = 95) replicated this finding using the same procedure as that used in Experiment 1 but included another attentional blink task that required spatial switching between the two targets. Strong correlations emerged only between the two attentional blink tasks (with/without spatial switching). The present results suggest that attentional deficits during spatial and temporal capture and the attentional blink tasks reflect different aspects of attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]