The time it takes to turn a memory into a template.

Visual search is typically guided by goals that are set within working memory. By varying the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between a visual stimulus describing the target and the search display containing that target, previous studies have estimated how long it takes to implement such an attentional set. Here we investigate how long it takes to turn a visual memory representation (rather than a percept of the stimulus) into an attentional set. We used a memory-based postcueing procedure in which observers first encoded two colors into memory. A subsequent spatial cue indicated which of the two defined the relevant target color, followed by the search task. Experiment 1, which employed RT-based measures with unlimited viewing time, showed search slopes for relevant and irrelevant sets that suggested near instant guidance. However, Experiment 2 demonstrated that RT measures can suffer from severe underestimation. With temporally limited (and masked) viewing, accuracy scores showed that maximal search guidance was reached at about 400 ms. The results suggest that a visual memory can be turned into an attentional set within less than half a second. The implications for previous findings are discussed.

[1]  George Sperling,et al.  The information available in brief visual presentations. , 1960 .

[2]  Stephen J. Boies,et al.  Components of attention. , 1971 .

[3]  Lawrence S. Meyers,et al.  Visual Search of Common Scenes , 1978 .

[4]  H. Egeth,et al.  Searching for conjunctively defined targets. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  P. Rabbitt,et al.  Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption , 1989 .

[6]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[7]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Sustained and transient components of focal visual attention , 1989, Vision Research.

[8]  H. J. Muller,et al.  Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  C. Bundesen.  A theory of visual attention. , 1990, Psychological review.

[10]  M. Cheal,et al.  Central and Peripheral Precuing of Forced-Choice Discrimination , 1991, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[11]  H. Pashler.  Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[12]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features , 1994, Memory & cognition.

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

[14]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[15]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  SEARCH FOR A CONJUNCTIVELY DEFINED TARGET CAN BE SELECTIVELY LIMITED TO A COLOR-DEFINED SUBSET OF ELEMENTS , 1995 .

[16]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Visual marking of old objects , 1998 .

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

[18]  P. Maquet,et al.  Orienting Attention to Locations in Perceptual Versus Mental Representations , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[19]  Naomi M. Kenner,et al.  How fast can you change your mind? The speed of top-down guidance in visual search , 2004, Vision Research.

[20]  Yuhong Jiang,et al.  Setting up the target template in visual search. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[21]  Tutis Vilis,et al.  Segregation and persistence of form in the lateral occipital complex , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[22]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Response selection modulates visual search within and across dimensions. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  B. Postle.  Working memory as an emergent property of the mind and brain , 2006, Neuroscience.

[24]  C. Olivers,et al.  On the dissociation between compound and present/absent tasks in visual search: Intertrial priming is ambiguity driven , 2006 .

[25]  Jeffrey D Schall,et al.  The role of working memory representations in the control of attention. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[26]  Jillian H. Fecteau,et al.  Priming of pop-out depends upon the current goals of observers. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[27]  Árni Kristjánsson,et al.  Readout From Iconic Memory and Selective Spatial Attention Involve Similar Neural Processes , 2007, Psychological science.

[28]  Sander A. Los,et al.  The effective time course of preparation , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

[29]  G. Campana,et al.  Where perception meets memory: A review of repetition priming in visual search tasks , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[30]  C. Olivers.  The attentional boost and the attentional blink , 2010 .

[31]  Roy Luria,et al.  Orienting attention to objects in visual short-term memory , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[32]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  On the limits of top-down control of visual selection , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[33]  M. Eimer,et al.  On the difference between working memory and attentional set , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[34]  M. Chun.  Visual working memory as visual attention sustained internally over time , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[35]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  The Time Course of Attention: Selection Is Transient , 2011, PloS one.

[36]  Gregory J. Zelinsky,et al.  Visual search guidance is best after a short delay , 2011, Vision Research.

[37]  Jason T. Arita,et al.  Direct Electrophysiological Measurement of Attentional Templates in Visual Working Memory , 2011, Psychological science.

[38]  Geoffrey F. Woodman,et al.  Attentional Templates in Visual Working Memory , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[39]  R. Abrams,et al.  Fundamental differences in visual search with verbal and pictorial cues , 2012, Vision Research.

[40]  Nancy B. Carlisle,et al.  Where do we store the memory representations that guide attention? , 2013, Journal of vision.