Multiple foci of spatial attention in multimodal working memory

Sensory Delay Activity: More than an Electrophysiological Index of Working Memory Load

Sustained contralateral delay activity emerges in the retention period of working memory (WM) tasks and has been commonly interpreted as an electrophysiological index of the number of items held in a discrete-capacity WM resource. More recent findings indicate that these visual and tactile components are sensitive to various cognitive operations beyond the storage of discrete items in WM. In this Perspective, we present recent evidence from unisensory and multisensory visual and tactile WM tasks suggesting that, in addition to memory load, sensory delay activity may also be indicative of attentional and executive processes, as well as reflecting the flexible, rather than discrete, allocation of a continuous WM resource. Together, these findings challenge the traditional model of the functional significance of the contralateral delay activity as a pure measure of item load, and suggest that it may also reflect executive, attentional, and perceptual mechanisms operating in hierarchically organized WM systems.

Shifts of Spatial Attention in Visual and Tactile Working Memory are Controlled by Independent Modality-Specific Mechanisms

The question whether the attentional control of working memory (WM) is shared across sensory modalities remains controversial. Here, we investigated whether attention shifts in visual and tactile WM are regulated independently. Participants memorized visual and tactile targets in a first memory sample set (S1) before encoding targets in a second sample set (S2). Importantly, visual or tactile S2 targets could appear on the same side as the corresponding S1 targets, or on opposite sides, thus, requiring shifts of spatial attention in visual or tactile WM. The activation of WM representations in modality-specific visual and somatosensory areas was tracked by recording visual and tactile contralateral delay activity (CDA/tCDA). CDA/tCDA components emerged contralateral to the side of visual or tactile S1 targets, and reversed polarity when S2 targets in the same modality appeared on the opposite side. Critically, the visual CDA was unaffected by the presence versus absence of concurrent attention shifts in tactile WM, and the tactile CDA remained insensitive to visual attention shifts. Visual and tactile WM performance was also not modulated by attention shifts in the other modality. These results show that the dynamic control of visual and tactile WM activation processes operates in an independent modality-specific fashion.

Retrospective Selection in Visual and Tactile Working Memory Is Mediated by Shared Control Mechanisms

Selective attention regulates the activation of working memory (WM) representations. Retro-cues, presented after memory sample stimuli have been stored, modulate these activation states by triggering shifts of attention to task-relevant samples. Here, we investigated whether the control of such attention shifts is modality-specific or shared across sensory modalities. Participants memorized bilateral tactile and visual sample stimuli before an auditory retro-cue indicated which visual and tactile stimuli had to be retained. Critically, these cued samples were located on the same side or opposite sides, thus requiring spatially congruent or incongruent attention shifts in tactile and visual WM. To track the attentional selection of retro-cued samples, tactile and visual contralateral delay activities (tCDA and CDA components) were measured. Clear evidence for spatial synergy effects from attention shifts in visual WM on concurrent shifts in tactile WM were observed: Tactile WM performance was impaired, and tCDA components triggered by retro-cues were strongly attenuated on opposite-sides relative to same-side trials. These spatial congruency effects were eliminated when cued attention shifts in tactile WM occurred in the absence of simultaneous shifts within visual WM. Results show that, in contrast to other modality-specific aspects of WM control, concurrent attentional selection processes within tactile and visual WM are mediated by shared supramodal control processes.

Cross-modal attention modulates tactile subitizing but not tactile numerosity estimation

Debate remains about whether the same attentional mechanism subserves subitizing (with number of items less than or equal to 4) and numerosity estimation (with number of items equal to or larger than 5), and evidence is scarce from the tactile modality. Here, we examined tactile numerosity perception. Using tactile Braille displays, participants completed the following three main tasks: (1) Unisensory task with focused attention: Participants reported the number (1~12) of the tactile pins. (2) Unisensory task with divided attention: Participants compared the numbers of pins across the upper and lower area of their left index fingers, in addition to reporting the number of tactile pins on their right index fingers. (3) Cross-modal task with divided attention: Participants reported the number of tactile pins and compared the numbers of visual dots across the upper and lower part of a (illusory) rectangle that overlaid the tactile stimuli. We found that performance of subitizing rather than estimation was interfered with in dual tasks, regardless of whether distractor events were from the same modality (tactile modality) or from a different modality (visual modality). Moreover, a further test of visual/tactile working memory capacity revealed that the precision of tactile subitizing, in the presence of a visual distractor, was correlated with the capacity of visual working memory, not of tactile working memory. Overall, our study revealed that tactile numerosity perception is accounted for by amodal attentional modulation yet by differential attentional mechanisms in terms of subitizing and estimation.

The Sources of Dual-task Costs in Multisensory Working Memory Tasks

We investigated the sources of dual-task costs arising in multisensory working memory (WM) tasks, where stimuli from different modalities have to be simultaneously maintained. Performance decrements relative to unimodal single-task baselines have been attributed to a modality-unspecific central WM store, but such costs could also reflect increased demands on central executive processes involved in dual-task coordination. To compare these hypotheses, we asked participants to maintain two, three, or four visual items. Unimodal trials, where only this visual task was performed, and bimodal trials, where a concurrent tactile WM task required the additional maintenance of two tactile items, were randomly intermixed. We measured the visual and tactile contralateral delay activity (CDA/tCDA components) as markers of WM maintenance in visual and somatosensory areas. There were reliable dual-task costs, as visual CDA components were reduced in size and visual WM accuracy was impaired on bimodal relative to unimodal trials. However, these costs did not depend on visual load, which caused identical CDA modulations in unimodal and bimodal trials, suggesting that memorizing tactile items did not reduce the number of visual items that could be maintained. Visual load did not also affect tCDA amplitudes. These findings indicate that bimodal dual-task costs do not result from a competition between multisensory items for shared storage capacity. Instead, these costs reflect generic limitations of executive control mechanisms that coordinate multiple cognitive processes in dual tasks. Our results support hierarchical models of WM, where distributed maintenance processes with modality-specific capacity limitations are controlled by a central executive mechanism.

Independent Attention Mechanisms Control the Activation of Tactile and Visual Working Memory Representations

Working memory (WM) is limited in capacity, but it is controversial whether these capacity limitations are domain-general or are generated independently within separate modality-specific memory systems. These alternative accounts were tested in bimodal visual/tactile WM tasks. In Experiment 1, participants memorized the locations of simultaneously presented task-relevant visual and tactile stimuli. Visual and tactile WM load was manipulated independently (one, two, or three items per modality), and one modality was unpredictably tested after each trial. To track the activation of visual and tactile WM representations during the retention interval, the visual contralateral delay activity (CDA) and tactile CDA (tCDA) were measured over visual and somatosensory cortex, respectively. CDA and tCDA amplitudes were selectively affected by WM load in the corresponding (tactile or visual) modality. The CDA parametrically increased when visual load increased from one to two and to three items. The tCDA was enhanced when tactile load increased from one to two items and showed no further enhancement for three tactile items. Critically, these load effects were strictly modality-specific, as substantiated by Bayesian statistics. Increasing tactile load did not affect the visual CDA, and increasing visual load did not modulate the tCDA. Task performance at memory test was also unaffected by WM load in the other (untested) modality. This was confirmed in a second behavioral experiment where tactile and visual loads were either two or four items, unimodal baseline conditions were included, and participants performed a color change detection task in the visual modality. These results show that WM capacity is not limited by a domain-general mechanism that operates across sensory modalities. They suggest instead that WM storage is mediated by distributed modality-specific control mechanisms that are activated independently and in parallel during multisensory WM.

Intermodal Attention Shifts in Multimodal Working Memory

Attention maintains task-relevant information in working memory (WM) in an active state. We investigated whether the attention-based maintenance of stimulus representations that were encoded through different modalities is flexibly controlled by top–down mechanisms that depend on behavioral goals. Distinct components of the ERP reflect the maintenance of tactile and visual information in WM. We concurrently measured tactile (tCDA) and visual contralateral delay activity (CDA) to track the attentional activation of tactile and visual information during multimodal WM. Participants simultaneously received tactile and visual sample stimuli on the left and right sides and memorized all stimuli on one task-relevant side. After 500 msec, an auditory retrocue indicated whether the sample set's tactile or visual content had to be compared with a subsequent test stimulus set. tCDA and CDA components that emerged simultaneously during the encoding phase were consistently reduced after retrocues that marked the corresponding (tactile or visual) modality as task-irrelevant. The absolute size of cue-dependent modulations was similar for the tCDA/CDA components and did not depend on the number of tactile/visual stimuli that were initially encoded into WM. Our results suggest that modality-specific maintenance processes in sensory brain regions are flexibly modulated by top–down influences that optimize multimodal WM representations for behavioral goals.

Long-term effects of interference on short-term memory performance in the rat

A distinction has always been made between long-term and short-term memory (also now called working memory, WM). The obvious difference between these two kinds of memory concerns the duration of information storage: information is supposedly transiently stored in WM while it is considered durably consolidated into long-term memory. It is well acknowledged that the content of WM is erased and reset after a short time, to prevent irrelevant information from proactively interfering with newly stored information. In the present study, we used typical WM radial maze tasks to question the brief lifespan of spatial WM content in rodents. Groups of rats were submitted to one of two different WM tasks in a radial maze: a WM task involving the repetitive presentation of a same pair of arms expected to induce a high level of proactive interference (PI) (HIWM task), or a task using a different pair in each trial expected to induce a low level of PI (LIWM task). Performance was effectively lower in the HIWM group than in LIWM in the final trial of each training session, indicative of a "within-session/short-term" PI effect. However, we also observed a different "between-session/long-term" PI effect between the two groups: while performance of LIWM trained rats remained stable over days, the performance of HIWM rats dropped after 10 days of training, and this impairment was visible from the very first trial of the day, hence not attributable to within-session PI. We also showed that a 24 hour-gap across training sessions known to allow consolidation processes to unfold, was a necessary and sufficient condition for the long-term PI effect to occur. These findings suggest that in the HIWM task, WM content was not entirely reset between training sessions and that, in specific conditions, WM content can outlast its purpose by being stored more permanently, generating a long-term deleterious effect of PI. The alternative explanation is that WM content could be transferred and stored more permanently in an intermediary form or memory between WM and long-term memory.