Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hold it! Memory affects attentional dwell time

  • Brief Reports
  • Published:
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The allocation of attention, including the initial orienting and the subsequent dwell time, is affected by several bottom-up and top-down factors. How item memory affects these processes, however, remains unclear. Here, we investigated whether item memory affects attentional dwell time by using a modified version of the attentional blink (AB) paradigm. Across four experiments, our results revealed that the AB was significantly affected by memory status (novel vs. old), but critically, this effect depended on the ongoing memory context. Specifically, items that were unique in terms of memory status demanded more resources, as measured by a protracted AB. The present findings suggest that a more comprehensive understanding of memory’s effects on attention can be obtained by accounting for an item’s memorial context, as well as its individual item memory strength. Our results provide new evidence that item memory and memory context play a significant role in the temporal allocation of attention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Akyürek, E. G., & Hommel, B. (2005). Short-term memory and the attentional blink: Capacity versus content. Memory & Cognition, 33, 654–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57, 289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, A., Henik, A., & Rafal, R. (2005). Competition between endogenous and exogenous orienting of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, H., & Wyble, B. (2007). The simultaneous type, serial token model of temporal attention and working memory. Psychological Review, 114, 38–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, D. E., & Broadbent, M. H. (1987). From detection to identification: Response to multiple targets in rapid serial visual presentation. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chanon, V. W., & Hopfinger, J. B. (2008). Memory’s grip on attention: The influence of item memory on the allocation of attention. Visual Cognition, 16, 325–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheal, M., & Lyon, D. R. (1991). Central and peripheral precuing of forced-choice discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 859–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie, J., & Klein, R. (1995). Familiarity and attention: Does what we know affect what we notice? Memory & Cognition, 23, 547–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun, M. M. (1997). Types and tokens in visual processing: A double dissociation between the attentional blink and repetition blindness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 738–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diliberto, K. A., Altarriba, J., & Neill, W. T. (2000). Novel popout and familiar popout in a brightness discrimination task. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1494–1500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Lollo, V., Kawahara, J., Ghorashi, S. M. S., & Enns, J. T. (2005). The attentional blink: Resource depletion or temporary loss of control? Psychological Research, 69, 191–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hopfinger, J. B., & West, V. M. (2006). Interactions between endogenous and exogenous attention on cortical visual processing. NeuroImage, 31, 774–789.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, W. A., Hawley, K. J., Plewe, S. H., Elliott, J. M., & De-Witt, M. J. (1990). Attention capture by novel stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 397–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind’s eye. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juola, J. F., Botella, J., & Palacios, A. (2004). Task- and locationswitching effects on visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 1303–1317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Most, S. B., & Jungé, J. A. (2008). Don’t look back: Retroactive, dynamic costs and benefits of emotional capture. Visual Cognition, 16, 262–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, H. J., & Rabbitt, P. M. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 315–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwenstein, M. R., Johnson, A., Kanai, R., & Martens, S. (2007). Cross-task repetition amnesia: Impaired recall of RSVP targets held in memory for a secondary task. Acta Psychologica, 125, 319–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 531–556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 849–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1995). Similarity determines the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 653–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, J. D., Althoff, R. R., Whitlow, S., & Cohen, N. J. (2000). Amnesia is a deficit in relational memory. Psychological Science, 11, 454–461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slotnick, S. D., & Schacter, D. L. (2004). A sensory signature that distinguishes true from false memories. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 664–672.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Diepen, P. M. J., & De Graef, P. (1994). Line-drawing library and software toolbox (Psychological Rep. No. 165). Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven, Laboratory of Experimental Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., Cavanagh, P., & Green, M. (1994). Familiarity and pop-out in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 495–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, CB 3270, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Davie Hall, Chapel Hill, 27599-3270, NC

    Emily L. Parks & Joseph B. Hopfinger

Authors
  1. Emily L. Parks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph B. Hopfinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph B. Hopfinger.

Additional information

This work was supported by NIMH Grant R01 MH066034 to J.B.H. We thank Robert Emerson, Cody Gillen, Daniel Leach, and Frank Oong for assistance with data collection.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parks, E.L., Hopfinger, J.B. Hold it! Memory affects attentional dwell time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 1128–1134 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1128

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1128

Keywords

Search

Navigation