Adaptive behavior relies on the selection and prioritization of relevant sensory inputs from the external environment as well as from among internal sensory representations held in working memory. Recent behavioral evidence suggests that the classic distinction between voluntary (goal-driven) and involuntary (stimulus-driven) influences over attentional allocation also applies to the selection of internal representations held in working memory. In the current EEG study, we set out to investigate the neural dynamics associated with the competition between voluntary and involuntary control over the focus of attention in visual working memory. We show that when voluntary and involuntary factors compete for the internal focus of attention, prioritization of the appropriate item is delayed—as reflected both in delayed gaze biases that track internal selection and in delayed neural beta (15–25 Hz) dynamics that track the planning for the upcoming memory-guided manual action. We further show how this competition is paralleled—possibly resolved—by an increase in frontal midline theta (4–8 Hz) activity that, moreover, predicts the speed of ensuing memory-guided behavior. Finally, because theta increased following retrocues that effectively reduced working-memory load, our data unveil how frontal theta activity during internal attentional focusing tracks demands on cognitive control over and above working-memory load. Together, these data yield new insight into the neural dynamics that govern the focus of attention in visual working memory, and disentangle the contributions of frontal midline theta activity to the processes of control versus retention in working memory.

We shift our gaze even when we orient attention internally to visual representations in working memory. Here, we show the bodily orienting response associated with internal selective attention is widespread as it also includes the head. In three virtual reality experiments, participants remembered 2 visual items. After a working memory delay, a central color cue indicated which item needed to be reproduced from memory. After the cue, head movements became biased in the direction of the memorized location of the cued memory item—despite there being no items to orient toward in the external environment. The heading-direction bias had a distinct temporal profile from the gaze bias. Our findings reveal that directing attention within the spatial layout of visual working memory bears a strong relation to the overt head orienting response we engage when directing attention to sensory information in the external environment. The heading-direction bias further demonstrates common neural circuitry is engaged during external and internal orienting of attention.

The transition to principal investigator (PI), or lab leader, can be challenging, partially due to the need to fulfil new managerial and leadership responsibilities. One key aspect of this role, which is often not explicitly discussed, is creating a supportive lab environment. Here, we present ten simple rules to guide the new PI in the development of their own positive and thriving lab atmosphere. These rules were written and voted on collaboratively, by the students and mentees of Professor Mark Stokes, who inspired this piece.

Working memory allows us to retain visual information to guide upcoming future behavior. In line with this future-oriented purpose of working memory, recent studies have shown that action planning occurs during encoding and retention of a single visual item, for which the upcoming action is certain. We asked whether and how this extends to multi-item visual working memory, when visual representations serve the potential future. Human participants performed a visual working-memory task with a memory-load manipulation (one/two/four items) and a delayed orientation-reproduction report (of one item). We measured EEG to track 15- to 25-Hz beta activity in electrodes contralateral to the required response hand—a canonical marker of action planning. We show an attenuation of beta activity, not only in Load 1 (with one certain future action) but also in Load 2 (with two potential future actions), compared with Load 4 (with low prospective-action certainty). Moreover, in Load 2 , potential action planning occurs regardless whether both visual items afford similar or dissimilar manual responses, and it predicts the speed of ensuing memory-guided behavior. This shows that potential action planning occurs during multi-item visual working memory and brings the perspective that working memory helps us prepare for the potential future.

Working memory enables us to retain past sensations in service of anticipated task demands. How we prepare for anticipated task demands during working memory retention remains poorly understood. Here, we focused on the role of time—asking how temporal expectations help prepare for ensuing memory-guided behavior. We manipulated the expected probe time in a delayed change-detection task and report that temporal expectation can have a profound influence on memory-guided behavioral performance. EEG measurements corroborated the utilization of temporal expectations: demonstrating the involvement of a classic EEG signature of temporal expectation—the contingent negative variation—in the context of working memory. We also report the influence of temporal expectations on 2 EEG signatures associated with visual working memory—the lateralization of 8- to 12-Hz alpha activity, and the contralateral delay activity. We observed a dissociation between these signatures, whereby alpha lateralization (but not the contralateral delay activity) adapted to the time of expected memory utilization. These data show how temporal expectations prepare visual working memory for behavior and shed new light on the electrophysiological markers of both temporal expectation and working memory.

Social attention when viewing natural social (compared with nonsocial) images has functional consequences on contextual memory in healthy human adults. In addition to attention affecting memory performance, strong evidence suggests that memory, in turn, affects attentional orienting. Here, we ask whether the effects of social processing on memory alter subsequent memory-guided attention orienting and corresponding anticipatory dynamics of 8–12 Hz alpha-band oscillations as measured with EEG. Eighteen young adults searched for targets in scenes that contained either social or nonsocial distracters and their memory precision tested. Subsequently, RT was measured as participants oriented to targets appearing in those scenes at either valid (previously learned) locations or invalid (different) locations. Memory precision was poorer for target locations in social scenes. In addition, distractor type moderated the validity effect during memory-guided attentional orienting, with a larger cost in RT when targets appeared at invalid (different) locations within scenes with social distractors. The poorer memory performance was also marked by reduced anticipatory dynamics of spatially lateralized 8–12 Hz alpha-band oscillations for scenes with social distractors. The functional consequences of a social attention bias therefore extend from memory to memory-guided attention orienting, a bidirectional chain that may further reinforce attentional biases.

Flexible control over currently relevant sensory representations is an essential feature of primate cognition. We investigated the neurophysiological bases of such flexible control in humans during an intermodal working memory task in which participants retained visual or tactile sequences. Using magnetoencephalography, we first show that working memory retention engages early visual and somatosensory areas, as reflected in the sustained load-dependent suppression of alpha and beta oscillations. Next, we identify three components that are also load dependent but modality independent: medial prefrontal theta synchronization, frontoparietal gamma synchronization, and sustained parietal event-related fields. Critically, these domain-general components predict (across trials and within load conditions) the modality-specific suppression of alpha and beta oscillations, with largely unique contributions per component. Thus, working memory engages multiple complementary frontoparietal components that have discernible neuronal dynamics and that flexibly modulate retention-related activity in sensory areas in a manner that tracks the current contents of working memory.