Inability to suppress salient distractors predicts low visual working memory capacity

Significance Humans can remember the features of three or four visual objects for short periods of time. Individual differences in this working memory capacity, which accurately predict fluid intelligence and performance in numerous cognitive tasks, have been hypothesized to reflect variations in attentional processes that govern access to the memory system. However, the specific attention mechanism that differentiates high- and low-capacity individuals is unknown. Here, we show that differences in working memory capacity are specifically related to distractor-suppression activity in visual cortex. Our electrophysiological measures reveal that although high-capacity individuals are able to actively suppress distractors, low-capacity individuals cannot suppress them in time to prevent distractors from capturing attention. According to contemporary accounts of visual working memory (vWM), the ability to efficiently filter relevant from irrelevant information contributes to an individual’s overall vWM capacity. Although there is mounting evidence for this hypothesis, very little is known about the precise filtering mechanism responsible for controlling access to vWM and for differentiating low- and high-capacity individuals. Theoretically, the inefficient filtering observed in low-capacity individuals might be specifically linked to problems enhancing relevant items, suppressing irrelevant items, or both. To find out, we recorded neurophysiological activity associated with attentional selection and active suppression during a competitive visual search task. We show that high-capacity individuals actively suppress salient distractors, whereas low-capacity individuals are unable to suppress salient distractors in time to prevent those items from capturing attention. These results demonstrate that individual differences in vWM capacity are associated with the timing of a specific attentional control operation that suppresses processing of salient but irrelevant visual objects and restricts their access to higher stages of visual processing.

[1]  Steven J Luck,et al.  Capture versus suppression of attention by salient singletons: Electrophysiological evidence for an automatic attend-to-me signal , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[2]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  The Capacity of Visual Short-Term Memory is Set Both by Visual Information Load and by Number of Objects , 2004, Psychological science.

[3]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Electrophysiological Evidence of the Capture of Visual Attention , 2013, J. Cogn. Neurosci..

[4]  Marina Schmid,et al.  An Introduction To The Event Related Potential Technique , 2016 .

[5]  T. Klingberg,et al.  Prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia control access to working memory , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[6]  John M. Gaspar,et al.  Suppression of Salient Objects Prevents Distraction in Visual Search , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[7]  Agnieszka Wykowska,et al.  Irrelevant Singletons in Visual Search Do Not Capture Attention but Can Produce Nonspatial Filtering Costs , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[8]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  Edward Awh,et al.  The bouncer in the brain , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[10]  R. Engle,et al.  Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  Pierre Jolicoeur,et al.  Tracking the Location of Visuospatial Attention in a Contingent Capture Paradigm , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[12]  H Pashler,et al.  Familiarity and visual change detection , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  R. Engle Working Memory Capacity as Executive Attention , 2002 .

[14]  C. Frith,et al.  The Role of Working Memory in Visual Selective Attention , 2001, Science.

[15]  Ali Jannati,et al.  Tracking target and distractor processing in fixed-feature visual search: evidence from human electrophysiology. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  E. Vogel,et al.  Working memory and fluid intelligence: Capacity, attention control, and secondary memory retrieval , 2014, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  R. Engle,et al.  Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. , 1999 .

[18]  E. Vogel,et al.  Human Variation in Overriding Attentional Capture , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  A. Zeman Attentional Processing. The Brain's Art of Mindfulness , 1996 .

[20]  D. Long,et al.  Working memory and Stroop interference: An individual differences investigation , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[21]  J. Theeuwes Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[22]  Andrew R. A. Conway,et al.  A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[23]  R. Engle,et al.  The mechanisms of working memory capacity: Primary memory, secondary memory, and attention control , 2014 .

[24]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Measurement of ERP latency differences: a comparison of single-participant and jackknife-based scoring methods. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

[25]  G. Keppel,et al.  Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook , 1976 .

[26]  G. Baylis,et al.  Individual differences in working memory capacity and enumeration , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[27]  H. Gibbons,et al.  The application of jackknife-based onset detection of lateralized readiness potential in correlative approaches. , 2004, Psychophysiology.

[28]  S. Luck,et al.  Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory , 2008, Nature.

[29]  E. Vogel,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Visual Working Memory Represents a Fixed Number of Items Regardless of Complexity , 2022 .

[30]  L. M. Ward,et al.  Spatial relevance determines facilitatory and inhibitory effects of auditory covert spatial orienting , 1999 .

[31]  Klaus Oberauer,et al.  Individual differences in components of reaction time distributions and their relations to working memory and intelligence. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[32]  Andrew R. A. Conway,et al.  The effect of memory load on negative priming: An individual differences investigation , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[33]  M. Eimer ERP modulations indicate the selective processing of visual stimuli as a result of transient and sustained spatial attention. , 1996, Psychophysiology.

[34]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Using the jackknife-based scoring method for measuring LRP onset effects in factorial designs. , 2001, Psychophysiology.

[35]  Nelson Cowan,et al.  Metatheory of storage capacity limits , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[36]  S J Luck,et al.  Spatial filtering during visual search: evidence from human electrophysiology. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[37]  Maro G. Machizawa,et al.  Neural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to working memory , 2005, Nature.

[38]  A. Jensen,et al.  Why Is Reaction Time Correlated With Psychometric g? , 1993 .

[39]  S. Luck,et al.  A Common Neural Mechanism for Preventing and Terminating the Allocation of Attention , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[40]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[41]  Vincent Di Lollo,et al.  Electrophysiological Indices of Target and Distractor Processing in Visual Search , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[42]  A. Jensen,et al.  THE IMPORTANCE OF INTRAINDIVIDUAL VARIATION IN REACTION TIME , 1992 .

[43]  Ali Jannati,et al.  Individual differences in rate of encoding predict estimates of visual short-term memory capacity (K). , 2015, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[44]  Geoffrey F Woodman,et al.  Serial deployment of attention during visual search. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[45]  Andrew B Leber,et al.  Neural Predictors of Within-Subject Fluctuations in Attentional Control , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[46]  Andrew R. A. Conway,et al.  Working memory and retrieval: a resource-dependent inhibition model. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[47]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Attention selection, distractor suppression and N2pc , 2009, Cortex.

[48]  G. Woodman,et al.  Storage of features, conjunctions and objects in visual working memory. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  Edward F. Ester,et al.  Discrete resource allocation in visual working memory. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[50]  J. Theeuwes Perceptual selectivity for color and form , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[51]  Jessica J. Green,et al.  Lateralized frontal activity elicited by attention-directing visual and auditory cues. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

[52]  Steven J. Luck,et al.  Behavioral and ERP measures of attentional bias to threat in the dot-probe task: poor reliability and lack of correlation with anxiety , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[53]  S. Luck,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visual search. , 1994, Psychophysiology.

[54]  Maro G. Machizawa,et al.  Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity , 2004, Nature.

[55]  E. Vogel,et al.  Individual Differences in Recovery Time From Attentional Capture , 2011, Psychological science.