A growing body of research suggests that the predictive power of working memory (WM) capacity for measures of intellectual aptitude is due to the ability to control attention and select relevant information. Crucially, attentional mechanisms implicated in controlling access to WM are assumed to be domain-general, yet reports of enhanced attentional abilities in individuals with larger WM capacities are primarily within the visual domain. Here, we directly test the link between WM capacity and early attentional gating across sensory domains, hypothesizing that measures of visual WM capacity should predict an individual's capacity to allocate auditory selective attention. To address this question, auditory ERPs were recorded in a linguistic dichotic listening task, and individual differences in ERP modulations by attention were correlated with estimates of WM capacity obtained in a separate visual change detection task. Auditory selective attention enhanced ERP amplitudes at an early latency (ca. 70–90 msec), with larger P1 components elicited by linguistic probes embedded in an attended narrative. Moreover, this effect was associated with greater individual estimates of visual WM capacity. These findings support the view that domain-general attentional control mechanisms underlie the wide variation of WM capacity across individuals.

An important question in the study of language is to what degree semantic and syntactic processes are automatic or controlled. This study employed an attentional blink (AB) paradigm to manipulate awareness in the processing of target words in order to assess automaticity in semantic and syntactic processing. In the semantic block, targets occurring both within and outside the AB period elicited an N400. However, N400 amplitude was significantly reduced during the AB period, and missed targets did not elicit an N400. In the syntactic block, ERPs to targets occurring outside the AB period revealed a late negative syntactic incongruency effect, whereas ERPs to targets occurring within the AB period showed no effect of incongruency. The semantic results support the argument that the N400 primarily indexes a controlled, postlexical process. Syntactic findings suggest that the ERP response to some syntactic violations depends on awareness and availability of attentional resources.

We used event-related potentials (ERPs) and gamma band oscillatory responses (GBRs) to examine whether intermodal attention operates early in the auditory, visual, and tactile modalities. To control for the effects of spatial attention, we spatially coregistered all stimuli and varied the attended modality across counterbalanced blocks in an intermodal selection task. In each block, participants selectively responded to either auditory, visual, or vibrotactile stimuli from the stream of intermodal events. Auditory and visual ERPs were modulated at the latencies of early cortical processing, but attention manifested later for tactile ERPs. For ERPs, auditory processing was modulated at the latency of the Na (29 msec), which indexes early cortical or thalamocortical processing and the subsequent P1 (90 msec) ERP components. Visual processing was modulated at the latency of the early phase of the C1 (62–72 msec) thought to be generated in the primary visual cortex and the subsequent P1 and N1 (176 msec). Tactile processing was modulated at the latency of the N160 (165 msec) likely generated in the secondary association cortex. Intermodal attention enhanced early sensory GBRs for all three modalities: auditory (onset 57 msec), visual (onset 47 msec), and tactile (onset 27 msec). Together, these results suggest that intermodal attention enhances neural processing relatively early in the sensory stream independent from differential effects of spatial and intramodal selective attention.