|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
01743nam a2200265Ia 4500 |
| 001 |
10.1080-13506285.2019.1634172 |
| 008 |
220511s2019 CNT 000 0 und d |
| 020 |
|
|
|a 13506285 (ISSN)
|
| 245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Quantifying the attentional impact of working memory matching targets and distractors
|
| 260 |
|
0 |
|b Routledge
|c 2019
|
| 856 |
|
|
|z View Fulltext in Publisher
|u https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2019.1634172
|
| 520 |
3 |
|
|a Various theoretical proposals have been put forward to explain how memory representations control attention during visual search. In this study, we use the first saccade on each trial as a way to quantify the attentional impact of multiple types of representations held in working memory. Across two experiments, we found that a search target maintained in working memory was attended over 20 times more frequently than a non-memory-matching distractor. In addition, an item matching an additional object represented in working memory was attended 2 times more frequently than a non-memory matching distractor. These findings show that there is a measurable attentional impact of items maintained in working memory for a future task, however, such representations have a much weaker attentional impact than working memory representations of search targets. © 2019, © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a article
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a controlled study
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a eye tracking
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a eye tracking
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a saccadic eye movement
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a visual attention
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Visual attention
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a visual search
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a working memory
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a working memory
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Carlisle, N.B.
|e author
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Woodman, G.F.
|e author
|
| 773 |
|
|
|t Visual Cognition
|
