Task-irrelevant features in visual working memory influence covert attention: Evidence from a partial report task

Foerster RM, Schneider WX. Task-irrelevant features in visual working memory influence covert attention: Evidence from a partial report task. Vision. 2019;3(3): 42. Selecting a target based on a representation in visual working memory (VWM) affords biasing covert attention towards objects with memory-matching features. Recently, we showed that even task-irrelevant features of a VWM template bias attention. Specifically, when participants had to saccade to a cued shape, distractors sharing the cue’s search-irrelevant color captured the eyes. While a saccade always aims at one target location, multiple locations can be attended covertly. Here, we investigated whether covert attention is captured similarly as the eyes. In our partial report task, each trial started with a shape-defined search cue, followed by a fixation cross. Next, two colored shapes, each including a letter, appeared left and right from fixation, followed by masks. The letter inside that shape matching the preceding cue had to be reported. In Experiment 1, either target, distractor, both, or no object matched the cue’s irrelevant color. Target-letter reports were most frequent in target-match trials and least frequent in distractor-match trials. Irrelevant cue and target color never matched in Experiment 2. Still, participants reported the distractor more often to the target’s disadvantage, when cue and distractor color matched. Thus, irrelevant features of a VWM template can influence covert attention in an involuntarily object-based manner when searching for trial-wise varying targets.</jats:p

Concurrent Load and Construal on Planning

Planning for the future is a necessary activity which spans across all aspects of an individual’s life. Concurrent cognitive load has been shown to hinder future planning, whereas concrete construal of events has been shown to increase planning efficacy. Interestingly, a limited literature speaks towards cognitive load inducing concrete construal. However, the two constructs predict differing outcomes on future planning therefore the interaction of cognitive load inducing a concrete construal is particularly interesting. The research study tested whether differing levels of concurrent cognitive load increase or decrease planning efficacy. The intention of the research was to elucidate whether cognitive load or construal is a greater predictor of planning as this will fill a gap in the literature. 693 participants were sampled and revealed significant main effects of cognitive load and task type on planning steps generated and enthusiasm. The predicted interactions between cognitive load and task type were not observed. Conclusions from the results are that cognitive load negatively impacts planning behavior and the results of this study did not confirm the induction of concrete construal under cognitive load