Turning Attention Inside Out: How Working Memory Serves Behavior

Flexible behavior requires guidance not only by sensations that are available immediately but also by relevant mental contents carried forward through working memory. Therefore, selective-attention functions that modulate the contents of working memory to guide behavior (inside-out) are just as important as those operating on sensory signals to generate internal contents (outside-in). We review the burgeoning literature on selective attention in the inside-out direction and underscore its functional, flexible, and future-focused nature. We discuss in turn the purpose (why), targets (what), sources (when), and mechanisms (how) of selective attention inside working memory, using visual working memory as a model. We show how the study of internal selective attention brings new insights concerning the core cognitive processes of attention and working memory and how considering selective attention and working memory together paves the way for a rich and integrated understanding of how mind serves behavior.

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 auditory cues can improve detection of near-threshold visual targets

Recent studies have demonstrated that visually cueing attention towards a stimulus location after its disappearance can facilitate visual processing of the target and increase task performance. Here, we tested whether such retro-cueing effects can also occur across different sensory modalities, as cross-modal facilitation has been shown in pre-cueing studies using auditory stimuli prior to the onset of a visual target. In the present study, participants detected low-contrast Gabor patches in a speeded response task. These patches were presented in the left or right visual periphery, preceded or followed by a lateralized and task-irrelevant sound at 4 stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOA; -600 ms, -150 ms, +150 ms, +450 ms). We found that pre-cueing at the -150 ms SOA led to a general increase in detection performance irrespective of the sound's location relative to the target. On top of this temporal effect, sound-cues also had a spatially specific effect, with further improvement when cue and target originated from the same location. Critically, the temporal effect was absent, but the spatial effect was present in the short-SOA retro-cueing condition (+150 ms). Drift-diffusion analysis of the response time distributions allowed us to better characterize the evidenced effects. Overall, our results show that sounds can facilitate visual processing, both pre- and retro-actively, indicative of a flexible and multisensory attentional system that underlies our conscious visual experience.

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.

Selective attention on representations in working memory: cognitive and neural mechanisms

Selective attention and working memory are inter-dependent core cognitive functions. It is critical to allocate attention on selected targets during the capacity-limited working memory processes to fulfill the goal-directed behavior. The trends of research on both topics are increasing exponentially in recent years, and it is considered that selective attention and working memory share similar underlying neural mechanisms. Different types of attention orientation in working memory are introduced by distinctive cues, and the means using retrospective cues are strengthened currently as it is manipulating the representation in memory, instead of the perceptual representation. The cognitive and neural mechanisms of the retro-cue effects are further reviewed, as well as the potential molecular mechanism. The frontal-parietal network that is involved in both attention and working memory is also the neural candidate for attention orientation during working memory. Neural oscillations in the gamma and alpha/beta oscillations may respectively be employed for the feedforward and feedback information transfer between the sensory cortices and the association cortices. Dopamine and serotonin systems might interact with each other subserving the communication between memory and attention. In conclusion, representations which attention shifts towards are strengthened, while representations which attention moves away from are degraded. Studies on attention orientation during working memory indicates the flexibility of the processes of working memory, and the beneficial way that overcome the limited capacity of working memory.