Distinct prioritization of visual working memory representations for search and for recall

Dube, Blaire; Al-Aidroos, Naseem · 2019 · Crossref

DOI: 10.3758/s13414-018-01664-6

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates whether prioritizing an item in visual working memory (VWM) for enhanced recall precision also grants that item "template status," thereby biasing attention during visual search. While previous research established that items serving as search templates are remembered with greater precision, it remained unclear if the reverse is true: does prioritizing an item for recall cause it to uniquely guide attention? The authors hypothesized that these two forms of prioritization—enhancing representational quality versus granting template status—might be distinct processes. To test this, the researchers conducted two experiments using a dual-task paradigm. Participants encoded the colors of two squares, with a cue indicating an 80% probability that one specific item would be probed in a subsequent memory test. On a subset of trials, instead of a memory test, participants performed a visual search task involving Landolt squares. A color-singleton distractor was introduced, matching either the high-priority (cued) item, the low-priority (non-cued) item, or a novel color. Experiment 1 used a partial-report memory task, while Experiment 2 utilized a change-detection task to increase statistical power and response time sensitivity. Attentional capture was measured by reaction times to the search target in the presence of these distractors. The results consistently showed that the cue effectively prioritized items for recall. In both experiments, participants demonstrated significantly higher precision and accuracy for the cued item compared to the non-cued item. However, this prioritization for recall did not translate to prioritization for search. Reaction times in the visual search task did not differ significantly between conditions where the distractor matched the high-priority item versus the low-priority item. Both memory representations biased attention equally, regardless of the cue. Bayesian analysis in Experiment 1 provided strong evidence for the null hypothesis, confirming that the cue did not alter priority for search. The authors conclude that prioritization for recall and prioritization for search are distinct mechanisms within VWM. While assigning an item template status enhances its precision, enhancing an item’s precision for recall does not grant it template status or unique attentional bias. This finding challenges the notion of a single, unified prioritization system in VWM and supports a functional division where items can be maintained with high precision without actively guiding attention. The study highlights the limitations of probabilistic cues in activating the "active" state of VWM representations required for attentional control.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• visual search