Cognitive Neuroscience Lab, Institute of Psychology, University of Hildesheim, Universitätsplatz 1, 31141, Hildesheim, Germany.
German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Von-Siebold-Star. 3a, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Psychol Res. 2022 Feb;86(1):150-169. doi: 10.1007/s00426-020-01469-z. Epub 2021 Jan 24.
It has been proposed that the deployment of selective attention to perceptual and memory representations might be governed by similar cognitive processes and neural resources. However, evidence for this simple and appealing proposal remains inconclusive, which might be due to a considerable divergence in tasks and cognitive demands when comparing attentional selection in memory versus perception. To examine whether selection in both domains share common attentional processes and only differ in the stimuli they act upon (external vs. internal), we compared behavioral costs or benefits between selection domains. In both domains, participants had to attend a target stimulus from a set of simultaneously presented stimuli or simultaneously active memory representations, respectively, with set, target, or both, being repeated or changed across trials. The results of two experiments delineated principal similarities and differences of selection processes in both domains: While positive priming from stimulus repetition was found in both selection domains, we found no consistent effects of negative priming when shifting the focus of attention to a previously to-be-ignored stimulus. However, priming in the perception task was mainly due to repetitions of the target feature (here: color), whereas for the memory task, repetition of the same set of stimulus representations was most important. We propose that the differences can be attributed to a reduced cognitive effort when the now relevant memory representation had already been pre-activated (even as a distractor) in the previous trial. Additionally, our experiments both underscore the importance of taking stimulus-response associations into account, which may be a hidden factor behind differences between domains. We conclude that any attempt of comparing internal versus external attentional selection has to consider inherent differences in selection dynamics across representational domains.
有人提出,对感知和记忆表象的选择性注意的部署可能受到类似的认知过程和神经资源的控制。然而,这一简单而吸引人的提议的证据仍然不确定,这可能是由于在记忆与感知的注意力选择之间进行比较时,任务和认知需求存在相当大的差异。为了检验这两个领域的选择是否共享共同的注意过程,而仅在它们作用的刺激(外部与内部)上有所不同,我们比较了两个领域的选择之间的行为成本或收益。在这两个领域中,参与者都必须分别从同时呈现的刺激或同时激活的记忆表象集中注意一个目标刺激,而设置、目标或两者都在试验中重复或改变。两个实验的结果描绘了两个领域选择过程的主要相似和不同之处:虽然在两个选择领域中都发现了刺激重复的正启动,但当将注意力焦点转移到先前要忽略的刺激时,我们没有发现负启动的一致影响。然而,在感知任务中,启动主要是由于目标特征(此处:颜色)的重复,而对于记忆任务,最重要的是重复相同的刺激表示集。我们提出,当现在相关的记忆表示在前一个试验中已经被预先激活(即使作为干扰)时,差异可以归因于认知努力的减少。此外,我们的实验都强调了考虑刺激-反应关联的重要性,这可能是不同领域之间差异的一个隐藏因素。我们的结论是,任何比较内部与外部注意力选择的尝试都必须考虑到不同表示域之间选择动态的固有差异。