Working memory capacity accounts for the ability to switch between object-based and location-based allocation of visual attention.

Bleckley, Durso, Crutchfield, Engle, and Khanna ( Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 884-889, ) found that visual attention allocation differed between groups high or low in working memory capacity (WMC). High-span, but not low-span, subjects showed an invalid-cue cost during a letter localization t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Memory & Cognition Vol. 43; no. 3; pp. 379 - 389
Autores principales: Bleckley, M., Foster, Jeffrey, Engle, Randall
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Apr2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
Descripción
Sumario:Bleckley, Durso, Crutchfield, Engle, and Khanna ( Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 884-889, ) found that visual attention allocation differed between groups high or low in working memory capacity (WMC). High-span, but not low-span, subjects showed an invalid-cue cost during a letter localization task in which the letter appeared closer to fixation than the cue, but not when the letter appeared farther from fixation than the cue. This suggests that low-spans allocated attention as a spotlight, whereas high-spans allocated their attention to objects. In this study, we tested whether utilizing object-based visual attention is a resource-limited process that is difficult for low-span individuals. In the first experiment, we tested the uses of object versus location-based attention with high and low-span subjects, with half of the subjects completing a demanding secondary load task. Under load, high-spans were no longer able to use object-based visual attention. A second experiment supported the hypothesis that these differences in allocation were due to high-spans using object-based allocation, whereas low-spans used location-based allocation.