Effects of memory load on visual search

  1. Gil Gómez de Liaño, Beatriz
  2. Botella Ausina, Juan
Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Año de publicación: 2010

Volumen: 22

Número: 4

Páginas: 725-731

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Psicothema

Resumen

Efectos de la carga de memoria en la búsqueda visual. No está claro el efecto que la carga de memoria tiene sobre la atención en la Búsqueda Visual (BV): se ha encontrado tanto ausencia como efectos negativos y positivos de la carga de memoria en BV. El principal objetivo del presente trabajo fue explorar si la carga de memoria puede modular una tarea de BV por medio de la infl uencia del «estado o set atencional» de los participantes, generado a través del orden (aleatorio versus bloqueado) y el tiempo (largo versus corto) de presentación de los ensayos. En el experimento 1 se aleatorizó el orden de presentación (5, 10 y 15 estímulos), mientras que para los experimentos 2A y 2B permaneció constante (10 estímulos). En estos últimos cambiamos el tiempo de presentación (3000 versus 1300, respectivamente). Los resultados mostraron ausencia de efectos de la carga de memoria en los experimentos 1 y 2A, mientras que sí se encontraron en el experimento 2B: los TRs en la tarea de BV fueron signifi cativamente mayores con carga alta de memoria; apoyando nuestra hipótesis sobre el «set atencional». Se discuten también otras posibles implicaciones teóricas para comprender mejor cómo la carga de memoria puede modular los procesos atencionales involucrados en BV.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Bacon, W. F., & Egeth, H.E. (1994). Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture. Perception and Psychophysics, 55, 485-496.
  • Conway, A.R.A., Tuholski, S.W., Shisler, R.J., & Engle, R.W. (1999). The effect of memory load on negative priming: An individual differences investigation. Memory & Cognition, 27(6), 1042-1050.
  • Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • De Fockert, J.W., Rees, G., Frith, C.D., & Lavie, N. (2001). The role of working memory in visual selective attention. Science, 291, 1803-1806.
  • Downing, P.E. (2000). Interactions between visual working memory and selective attention. Psychological Science, 11(6), 467-473.
  • Engel, R.W., Kane, M.J., & Tuholski, S.W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex. En A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.): Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102-134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gil-Gómez de Liaño, B., & Botella, J. (in press). Concurrent memory load can make RSVP Search More Efficient.
  • Hester, R., & Garavan, H. (2005). Working memory and executive function: The influence of content and load on the control of attention. Memory & Cognition, 33(2), 221-233.
  • Hitch, G.J., Woodin, M.E., & Baker, S. (1989). Visual and phonological components of working memory in children. Memory & Cognition, 17, 175-185.
  • Jacoby, L.L., & Brooks, L.R. (1984). Nonanalytic cognition: Memory, perception and concept learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 18, 1-46.
  • Jha, A.P. (2002). Tracking the time-course of attentional involvement in spatial working memory: An event-related potential investigation. Cognitive Brain Research, 15, 61-69.
  • Kiefer, M., Ahlegian, M., & Spitzer, M. (2005). Working memory capacity, indirect semantic priming and Stroop interference: Pattern of interindividual prefrontal performance differences in healthy volunteers. Neuropsychology, 19(3), 332-344.
  • Kim, S.Y., Kim, M.S., & Chun, M.M. (2005). Concurrent memory load can reduce distraction. PNAS, 102(45), 16524-16529.
  • Kim, M.S., Min, S.-J., Kim, K., & Won, B.-Y. (2006). Concurrent working memory load can reduce distraction: An fMRI study [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 6(6), 125a. Available at http://www.journalofvision.org/6/6/125/.
  • Lavie, N., & De Fockert, J. (2006). Frontal control of attentional capture in visual search. Visual Cognition, 14, 863-876.
  • Lavie, N., Hirst, A., De Fockert, J.W., & Viding, E. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(3), 339-354.
  • Logan, G.D. (1978). Attention in character-classification tasks: Evidence for the automaticicity of component stages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107, 32-63.
  • Long, D.L., & Prat, C.S. (2002). Working memory and Stroop interference: An individual differences investigation. Memory & Cognition, 30(2), 294-301.
  • Los, S.A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94, 145-188.
  • Oh, S.H., & Kim, M.S. (2004). The role of spatial working memory in visual search efficiency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(2), 275-281.
  • Park, S., Kim, M.-S., & Chun, M.M. (2007). Concurrent working memory load can facilitate selective attention: Evidence for specialized load. Journal Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(5), 1062-1075.
  • Roberts, R.J., Jr., Hager, L.D., & Heron, C. (1994). Prefrontal cognitive processes: Working memory and inhibition in the antisaccade task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 374-393.
  • SanMiguel, I., Corral, M.J., & Escera, C. (2008). When loading working memory reduces distraction: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence from an auditory-visual distraction paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1131-1145.
  • Silverberg, N., & Buchanan, L. (2005). Verbal mediation and memory for novel figural designs: A dual interference study. Brain and Cognition, 57, 198-209.
  • Smilek, D., Enns, J.T., Eastwood, J.D., & Merikle, P.M. (2006a). Relax! Cognitive strategy influences visual search. Visual Cognition, 14, 543-564.
  • Smilek, D., Dixon, M.J., & Merikle, P.M. (2006b). Revisiting the category effect: The influence of meaning and search strategy on the efficiency of visual search. Brain Research, 1080, 73-90.
  • Soto, D., Heinke, D., Humphreys, G.W., & Blanco, M.J. (2005). Early, involuntary top-down guidance of attention from working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(2), 248-261.
  • Stins, J.F., Vosse, S., Boomsma, D.I., & De Geus, E.J.C. (2004). On the role of working memory in response interference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 947-958.
  • Wolfe, J.M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, 202-238.
  • Woodman, G.F., Vogel, E.K., & Luck, S.J. (2001). Visual search remains efficient when visual working memory is full. Psychological Science, 12, 219-224.
  • Yi, D.J., Woodman, G.F., Widders, D., Marois, R., & Chun, M.M. (2004). Neural fate of ignored stimuli: Dissociable effects of perceptual and working memory load. Nature Neuroscience, 7(9), 992-996.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet