Comparing retro-cue benefit mechanisms in visual working memory: completely valid vs. highly valid retro-cues.

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY BMC Psychology Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1186/s40359-024-02145-2
Qiang Liu, Lijing Guo, Dan Nie, Kai Fu, Chaoxiong Ye
{"title":"Comparing retro-cue benefit mechanisms in visual working memory: completely valid vs. highly valid retro-cues.","authors":"Qiang Liu, Lijing Guo, Dan Nie, Kai Fu, Chaoxiong Ye","doi":"10.1186/s40359-024-02145-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Visual working memory (VWM) plays a crucial role in temporarily maintaining and manipulating visual information. Retro-cue benefit (RCB) refers to the enhancement of memory performance when attention is directed toward a subset of items in VWM after their initial encoding. Our recent electroencephalogram (EEG) studies indicate that cue validity affects the mechanisms underlying RCB formation. However, previous research has not thoroughly examined whether these mechanisms differ between completely valid and highly valid cue conditions. This study investigates the consistency of RCB mechanisms under conditions of complete (100%) and high (80%) retro-cue validity. We manipulated retro-cue validity and examined cognitive processing mechanisms under different validity conditions using EEG. Specifically, we focused on the N2pc component, which reflects attentional resource allocation, and the contralateral delay activity (CDA) component, which reflects the quantity of information retained in VWM. The results, encompassing both behavioral and event-related potential (ERP) findings, show that participants in both the 100% and 80% cue validity conditions exhibit robust RCB. Notably, the degree of RCB remains consistent across these conditions, indicating that participants utilize retro-cues to enhance VWM performance to the same extent. In the 80% cue validity condition, a significant retro-cue cost (RCC) was observed, indicating that participants selectively discarded uncued items from VWM. In invalid trials, response accuracy drops to chance levels, supporting the removal hypothesis. ERP results reveal that attentional resource allocation (N2pc) and the quantity of retained information (CDA) remain uniform across cue validity conditions. The mechanism responsible for RCB formation appears to involve an all-or-nothing process of discarding uncued information rather than a flexible resource allocation strategy. This study provides insights into attention allocation and information-processing mechanisms in VWM, suggesting that conclusions drawn from tasks with completely valid retro-cues can be integrated with findings from highly valid cue tasks. These findings also illuminate the flexibility of internal attentional resource allocation during RCB formation and contribute to our understanding of attention processes in VWM.</p>","PeriodicalId":37867,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychology","volume":"12 1","pages":"639"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11546517/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02145-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Visual working memory (VWM) plays a crucial role in temporarily maintaining and manipulating visual information. Retro-cue benefit (RCB) refers to the enhancement of memory performance when attention is directed toward a subset of items in VWM after their initial encoding. Our recent electroencephalogram (EEG) studies indicate that cue validity affects the mechanisms underlying RCB formation. However, previous research has not thoroughly examined whether these mechanisms differ between completely valid and highly valid cue conditions. This study investigates the consistency of RCB mechanisms under conditions of complete (100%) and high (80%) retro-cue validity. We manipulated retro-cue validity and examined cognitive processing mechanisms under different validity conditions using EEG. Specifically, we focused on the N2pc component, which reflects attentional resource allocation, and the contralateral delay activity (CDA) component, which reflects the quantity of information retained in VWM. The results, encompassing both behavioral and event-related potential (ERP) findings, show that participants in both the 100% and 80% cue validity conditions exhibit robust RCB. Notably, the degree of RCB remains consistent across these conditions, indicating that participants utilize retro-cues to enhance VWM performance to the same extent. In the 80% cue validity condition, a significant retro-cue cost (RCC) was observed, indicating that participants selectively discarded uncued items from VWM. In invalid trials, response accuracy drops to chance levels, supporting the removal hypothesis. ERP results reveal that attentional resource allocation (N2pc) and the quantity of retained information (CDA) remain uniform across cue validity conditions. The mechanism responsible for RCB formation appears to involve an all-or-nothing process of discarding uncued information rather than a flexible resource allocation strategy. This study provides insights into attention allocation and information-processing mechanisms in VWM, suggesting that conclusions drawn from tasks with completely valid retro-cues can be integrated with findings from highly valid cue tasks. These findings also illuminate the flexibility of internal attentional resource allocation during RCB formation and contribute to our understanding of attention processes in VWM.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较视觉工作记忆中的回溯线索受益机制:完全有效的回溯线索与高度有效的回溯线索。
视觉工作记忆(VWM)在临时保持和处理视觉信息方面起着至关重要的作用。回溯线索益处(RCB)是指在初始编码后,当注意力被引导到视觉工作记忆中的一个子集项目时,记忆效果会得到增强。我们最近的脑电图(EEG)研究表明,线索有效性会影响 RCB 的形成机制。然而,以往的研究并没有深入研究这些机制在完全有效和高度有效的线索条件下是否有所不同。本研究调查了在完全有效(100%)和高度有效(80%)的回溯线索条件下 RCB 机制的一致性。我们操纵了回溯线索的有效性,并使用脑电图检查了不同有效性条件下的认知加工机制。具体来说,我们重点研究了反映注意力资源分配的 N2pc 分量和反映在 VWM 中保留的信息量的对侧延迟活动(CDA)分量。包括行为和事件相关电位(ERP)在内的研究结果表明,100% 和 80% 提示有效性条件下的参与者都表现出很强的 RCB。值得注意的是,RCB 的程度在这些条件下保持一致,这表明参与者在相同程度上利用回溯线索来提高 VWM 性能。在提示有效性为 80% 的条件下,观察到了显著的逆向提示成本(RCC),这表明参与者选择性地从 VWM 中放弃了未被提示的项目。在无效试验中,反应准确率会下降到偶然水平,从而支持了移除假说。ERP结果显示,注意力资源分配(N2pc)和保留信息量(CDA)在不同线索有效性条件下保持一致。RCB形成的机制似乎涉及一个抛弃未被提示信息的全有或全无过程,而不是一个灵活的资源分配策略。这项研究提供了对大众视觉中注意力分配和信息处理机制的见解,表明从完全有效的逆向线索任务中得出的结论可以与高度有效的线索任务中的结论相结合。这些发现还揭示了在 RCB 形成过程中内部注意资源分配的灵活性,有助于我们理解大众视觉中的注意过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Psychology
BMC Psychology Psychology-Psychology (all)
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
265
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of psychology, human behavior and the mind, including developmental, clinical, cognitive, experimental, health and social psychology, as well as personality and individual differences. The journal welcomes quantitative and qualitative research methods, including animal studies.
期刊最新文献
When a bleak future comes closer: interaction effects of emotion and temporal distance framing in climate change communication. Father involvement and emotion regulation during early childhood: a systematic review. The effects of digital CBT intervention on attentional bias and sleep quality of poor sleepers with insomnia symptoms. Relationship between different levels of internet use and depressive tendencies in Chinese college students: the chain mediating effect based on physical activity and social adaptability. Assessing the suitability and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the YP-CORE for adolescents in Latin America: a study in Ecuador.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1