Abstract
We report two experiments investigating the effect of working memory (WM) load on selective attention. Experiment 1 was a modified version of Lavie et al. and confirmed that increasing memory load disrupted performance in the classic flanker task. Experiment 2 used the same manipulation of WM load to probe attention during the viewing of complex scenes while also investigating individual differences in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) traits. In the image-viewing task, we measured the degree to which fixations targeted each of two crucial objects: (1) a social object (a person in the scene) and (2) a non-social object of higher or lower physical salience. We compared the extent to which increasing WM load would change the pattern of viewing of the physically salient and socially salient objects. If attending to the social item requires greater default voluntary top-down resources, then the viewing of social objects should show stronger modulation by WM load compared with viewing of physically salient objects. The results showed that the social object was fixated to a greater degree than the other object (regardless of physical salience). Increased salience drew fixations away from the background leading to slightly increased fixations on the non-social object, without changing fixations on the social object. Increased levels of ADHD-like traits were associated with fewer fixations on the social object, but only in the high-salient, low-load condition. Importantly, WM load did not affect the number of fixations on the social object. Such findings suggest rather surprisingly that attending to a social area in complex stimuli is not dependent on the availability of voluntary top-down resources.
Highlights
Previous research has focused on how visual attention and working memory (WM) interact in the context of distractor interference (Cashdollar et al, 2013; Downing, 2000; Konstantinou & Lavie, 2020; Lavie, 2010; Olivers et al, 2006)
Interference from a physically salient distractor has been shown to increase under a high WM load (Lavie & De Fockert, 2005). These results demonstrate that the ability to reject distractors is impaired when WM is taxed, suggesting that WM plays an important role in attentional selection
We have reviewed how our eye movements might be guided by both bottom-up physical salience and top-down mechanisms, and how attention might be disrupted when WM is loaded with information
Summary
Previous research has focused on how visual attention and working memory (WM) interact in the context of distractor interference (Cashdollar et al, 2013; Downing, 2000; Konstantinou & Lavie, 2020; Lavie, 2010; Olivers et al, 2006). When shopping in the supermarket for a particular product, you must retrieve information from long-term memory about the appearance of the target and hold it in your WM, creating a target template (e.g., Bundesen, 1990; Duncan & Humphreys, 1989). This target template serves to specify your goal during the shopping expedition and should serve to guide your attention towards the sought-after product. Avoiding interference from irrelevant distractors can be especially difficult when they are physically salient (recall the bright red packaging of the Doritos pack). It seems likely that under such a scenario, increasing our cognitive load by trying to remember the phone number for the taxi we need to call to return home
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
