Does the presence of more features in a bound representation in working memory require extra object-based attention?

Unraveling the binding problem in working memory: insights from the hierarchical binding model

The binding problem is a crucial issue in the study of working memory (WM) and remains a central topic of debate among various WM models. Over the past decade, we have explored feature binding within WM, guided by the Hierarchical Binding Model (HBM). This model suggests that WM binding occurs in two stages: an initial implicit binding involving rapid, coarse feature processing, followed by explicit binding where focused attention refines these features via a reentry process. We found that implicit binding is closely related to the attentional processing of features during the perceptual stage. Basic features that can be rapidly and coarsely processed in parallel through spread attention are involuntarily extracted into WM along with the target features, forming a rough bound representation. For explicit binding, we examined the role of attention in retaining explicit binding in WM, emphasizing the unique role of reentry in the HBM. Our findings indicate that WM binding requires additional object attention through the reentry process. These results demonstrate that both implicit and explicit bindings are integral to WM and that the HBM is effective in elucidating the binding mechanisms within WM.

Task Demands Differentially Affect Processing of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Object Features in Working Memory

Some argue that visual working memory operates on integrated object representations. Here, we contend that obligatory feature integration occurs with intrinsic but not extrinsic object features. Working memory for shapes and colors was assessed using a change-detection task with a central test probe, while recording event-related potentials (ERPs). Color was either an intrinsic surface feature of a shape or connected to the shape via a proximal but spatially disjunct extrinsic frame. There were two types of test: The direct test required memory for shape and color; the indirect test required only shape memory. Study-test changes of color were therefore either task-relevant or task-irrelevant. We assessed performance costs and event-related potential (ERP) effects arising from color changes. In the direct test, performance was poorer for extrinsic than intrinsic stimuli; task-relevant color changes elicited enhanced frontal negativity (N2, FN400) for both intrinsic and extrinsic stimuli. In the indirect test, performance costs and ERP effects associated with irrelevant color change were larger for intrinsic than extrinsic stimuli. This suggests intrinsic information is more readily integrated into the working-memory representation and evaluated against the test probe. Findings imply that feature integration is not obligatory under all conditions but influenced by stimulus-driven and task-related focus of attention.

Is the social chunking of agent actions in working memory resource-demanding?

Retaining social interactions in working memory (WM) for further social activities is vital for a successful social life. Researchers have noted a social chunking phenomenon in WM: WM involuntarily uses the social interaction cues embedded in the individual actions and chunks them as one unit. Our study is the first to examine whether the social chunking in WM is an automatic process, by asking whether social chunking of agent actions in WM is resource-demanding, a key hallmark of automaticity. We achieved this by probing whether retaining agent interactions in WM as a chunk required more attention than retaining actions without interaction. We employed a WM change-detection task with actions containing social interaction cues as memory stimuli, and required participants only memorizing individual actions. As domain-general attention and object-based attention are suggested playing a key role in retaining chunks in WM, a secondary task was inserted in the WM maintenance phase to consume these two types of attention. We reestablished the fact that the social chunking in WM required no voluntary control (Experiments 1 and 2). Critically, we demonstrated substantial evidence that social chunking in WM did not require extra domain-general attention (Experiment 1) or object-based attention (Experiment 2). These findings imply that the social chunking of agent actions in WM is not resource-demanding, supporting an automatic view of social chunking in WM.