The Flexible Nature of the Interaction Between Attention and Working Memory

Stefan Van der Stigchel; Christian N. L. Olivers

doi:10.5334/joc.68

Abstract

In the research literature, attention and working memory are often intimately linked. In his excellent target article, Oberauer concludes that attention is not a necessary requirement for working memory maintenance. In our reply, we argue that attention is an emergent property of maintaining the current task goal. Humans can flexibly transfer the storage of information between different states and different memory systems as the need arises. Only information in service of currently active task goals requires attentional resources for maintenance. In this state, memoranda can bias behavior and are susceptible to interference from additional attention demanding tasks.

References

Gayet, S., Paffen, C. L. E., & Van der Stigchel, S. (2013). Information matching the content of visual working memory is prioritized for conscious access. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2472–2480. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613495882
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gayet, S., Paffen, C. L. E., & Van der Stigchel, S. (2018). Visual working memory storage recruits sensory processing areas. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 189–190. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.09.011
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gayet, S., van Moorselaar, D., Olivers, C. N. L., Paffen, C. L. E., & Van der Stigchel, S. (2019). Prospectively reinstated memory drives conscious access of matching visual input. Scientific Reports, 9, 4793. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-41350-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52(4), 291–345. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.11.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Klapp, S. T., Marshburn, E. A., & Lester, P. T. (1983). Short-term memory does not involve the “working memory” of information processing: The demise of a common assumption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112(2), 240–264. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.112.2.240
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krauzlis, R. J., Bollimunta, A., Arcizet, F., & Wang, L. (2014). Attention as an effect not a cause. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(9), 457–464. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.05.008
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lewis-Peacock, J. A., Drysdale, A. T., Oberauer, K., & Postle, B. R. (2012). Neural evidence for a distinction between short-term memory and the focus of attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(1), 61–79. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00140
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oberauer, K. (2019). Working Memory and Attention – A Conceptual Analysis and Review. Journal of Cognition, 2(1): 36, pp. 1–23. DOI: 10.5334/joc.58.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Olivers, C. N. L., Meijer, F., & Theeuwes, J. (2006). Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: visual working memory content affects visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1243–1265. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.5.1243
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reinhart, R. M., & Woodman, G. F. (2013). High stakes trigger the use of multiple memories to enhance the control of attention. Cerebral Cortex, 24(8), 2022–2035. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bht057
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Silvis, J. D., & Van der Stigchel, S. (2014). How memory mechanisms are a key component in the guidance of our eye movements: evidence from the global effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 357–362. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0498-9
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thalmann, M., Souza, A. S., & Oberauer, K. (2019). Revisiting the attentional demands of rehearsal in working-memory tasks. Journal of Memory and Language, 105, 1–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2018.10.005
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
van Loon, A. M., Olmos-Solis, K., Fahrenfort, J. J., & Olivers, C. N. (2018). Current and future goals are represented in opposite patterns in object-selective cortex. ELife, 7, e38677. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.38677
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
van Moorselaar, D., Theeuwes, J., & Olivers, C. N. (2016). Learning changes the attentional status of prospective memories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1483–1490. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1008-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

The Flexible Nature of the Interaction Between Attention and Working Memory

Abstract

Paradigm

My account