Reward-priming impacts visual working memory maintenance: Evidence from human electrophysiology

Relative saliency affects attentional capture and suppression of color and face singleton distractors: evidence from event-related potential studies

Prior research has yet to fully elucidate the impact of varying relative saliency between target and distractor on attentional capture and suppression, along with their underlying neural mechanisms, especially when social (e.g. face) and perceptual (e.g. color) information interchangeably serve as singleton targets or distractors, competing for attention in a search array. Here, we employed an additional singleton paradigm to investigate the effects of relative saliency on attentional capture (as assessed by N2pc) and suppression (as assessed by PD) of color or face singleton distractors in a visual search task by recording event-related potentials. We found that face singleton distractors with higher relative saliency induced stronger attentional processing. Furthermore, enhancing the physical salience of colors using a bold color ring could enhance attentional processing toward color singleton distractors. Reducing the physical salience of facial stimuli by blurring weakened attentional processing toward face singleton distractors; however, blurring enhanced attentional processing toward color singleton distractors because of the change in relative saliency. In conclusion, the attentional processes of singleton distractors are affected by their relative saliency to singleton targets, with higher relative saliency of singleton distractors resulting in stronger attentional capture and suppression; faces, however, exhibit some specificity in attentional capture and suppression due to high social saliency.

Reward advantage over punishment for incentivizing visual working memory

The prospects of gaining reward and avoiding punishment widely influence human behavior. Despite of numerous attempts to investigate the influence of motivational signals on working memory (WM), whether the valence and the magnitude of motivational signals interactively influence WM performance remains unclear. To investigate this, the present study used a free-recall working memory task with EEG recording to compare the effect of incentive valence (reward or punishment), as well as the magnitude of incentives on visual WM. Behavioral results revealed that the presence of incentive signals improved WM precision when compared with no-incentive condition, and compared with punishing cues, rewarding cues led to greater facilitation in WM precision, as well as confidence ratings afterward. Moreover, event related potential (ERP) results suggested that compared with punishment, reward led to an earlier latency of late positive component (LPC), a larger amplitude of contingent negative variation (CNV) during the expectation period, and a larger P300 amplitude during the sample and delay periods. Furthermore, reward advantage over punishment in behavioral and neural results were correlated, such that individuals with larger CNV difference between reward and punishment conditions also report greater distinction in confidence ratings between the two conditions. In sum, our results demonstrate what and how rewarding cues cause more beneficial effects than punishing cues when incentivizing visual WM.

Reward Expectation Differentially Modulates Global and Local Spatial Working Memory Accuracy

Although it has been suggested that reward expectation affects the performance of spatial working memory tasks, controversial results have been found in previous experiments. Hence, it is still unclear to what extent reward expectation has an effect on working memory. To clarify this question, a memory-guided saccade task was applied, in which participants were instructed to retain and reconstruct a temporospatial sequence of four locations by moving their eyes in each trial. The global- and local-level spatial working memory accuracies were calculated to determine the reward effect on the global and local level of processing in spatial working memory tasks. Although high reward expectation enhanced the encoding of spatial information, the percentage of trials in which the cued location was correctly fixated decreased with increment of reward expectation. The reconstruction of the global temporospatial sequence was enhanced by reward expectation, whereas the local reconstruction performance was not affected by reward. Furthermore, the improvements in local representations of uncued locations and local sequences were at the cost of the representation of cued locations. The results suggest that the reward effect on spatial working memory is modulated by the level of processing, which supports the flexible resource theory during maintenance.

Gotcha: Working memory prioritization from automatic attentional biases

Attention is an important resource for prioritizing information in working memory (WM), and it can be deployed both strategically and automatically. Most research investigating the relationship between WM and attention has focused on strategic efforts to deploy attentional resources toward remembering relevant information. However, such voluntary attentional control represents a mere subset of the attentional processes that select information to be encoded and maintained in WM (Theeuwes, Journal of Cognition, 1[1]: 29, 1-15, 2018). Here, we discuss three ways in which information becomes prioritized automatically in WM-physical salience, statistical learning, and reward learning. This review integrates findings from perception and working memory studies to propose a more sophisticated understanding of the relationship between attention and working memory.

Implicit outcomes expectancies shape memory process: Electrophysiological evidence

The simple manipulation of pairing specific outcomes with the sample stimuli strongly affects discriminative learning and memory processes. This procedure has been named the Differential Outcomes Procedure (DOP) and is usually compared to a control condition (the non-differential procedure, NOP) consisting in the random administration of the outcomes after each correct response. Recent research has revealed that the DOP effect arises even under unconscious conditions. In this study, we explored the temporal dynamics of short-term memory processes in both the DOP and the NOP in the absence of awareness of either the outcome (Experiment 1A) or the initial sample stimulus (Experiment 1B) through the evoked-related potentials technique. Results showed distinctive electrophysiological activation patterns in the DOP compared with the NOP at encoding, maintenance and retrieval phases. The present findings provide electrophysiological evidence of implicit-prospective processes involved in the DOP. They elucidate the processes that result in improved visual recognition memory.

Multiple high-reward items can be prioritized in working memory but with greater vulnerability to interference

Emerging literature indicates that working memory and attention interact in determining what is retained over time, though the nature of this relationship and the impacts on performance across different task contexts remain to be mapped. In the present study, four experiments examined whether participants can prioritize one or more high-reward items within a four-item target array for the purposes of an immediate cued recall task, and the extent to which this mediates the disruptive impact of a postdisplay to-be-ignored suffix. All four experiments indicated that endogenous direction of attention toward high-reward items results in their improved recall. Furthermore, increasing the number of high-reward items from one to three (Experiments 1-3) produces no decline in recall performance for those items, while associating each item in an array with a different reward value results in correspondingly graded levels of recall performance (Experiment 4). These results suggest the ability to exert precise voluntary control in the prioritization of multiple targets. However, in line with recent outcomes drawn from serial visual memory, this endogenously driven focus on high-reward items results in greater susceptibility to exogenous suffix interference, relative to low-reward items. This contrasts with outcomes from cueing paradigms, indicating that different methods of attentional direction may not always result in equivalent outcomes on working memory performance.