Most investigations of visual search have focused on the discrimination between a search target and other task-irrelevant distractor objects (selection). The attentional limitations that arise when multiple target objects in the same display have to be processed simultaneously (access) remain poorly understood. Here, we employed behavioral and electrophysiological measures to investigate the factors that determine whether multiple target objects can be accessed in parallel. Performance and N2pc components were measured for search displays that contained either a single target or two target objects. When two target objects were present, they either had the same or different target-defining features. Participants reported whether search displays contained a single target, two targets with shared features, or two targets with different features. There were performance costs as well as reduced N2pc amplitudes for two-target/different relative to two-target/same displays, suggesting that access to multiple target objects defined by different features was impaired. These behavioral and electrophysiological costs were also observed in a task where all search display objects were physically different, but not during color or shape singleton search, confirming that they do not reflect a low-level perceptual grouping of physically identical targets. These results demonstrate strong feature-specific limitations of visual access, as proposed by the Boolean map theory of visual attention. They suggest that multiple target objects can be accessed in parallel only when they share task-relevant features and demonstrate that mechanisms of visual access can be studied with electrophysiological markers.

Mental representations of target features (attentional templates) control the selection of candidate target objects in visual search. The question where templates are maintained remains controversial. We employed the N2pc component as an electrophysiological marker of template-guided target selection to investigate whether and under which conditions templates are held in visual working memory (vWM). In two experiments, participants memorized one or four shapes (low vs. high vWM load) before either being tested on their memory or performing a visual search task. When targets were defined by one of two possible colors (e.g., red or green), target N2pcs were delayed with high vWM load. This suggests that the maintenance of multiple shapes in vWM interfered with the activation of color-specific search templates, supporting the hypothesis that these templates are held in vWM. This was the case despite participants always searching for the same two target colors. In contrast, the speed of target selection in a task where a single target color remained relevant throughout was unaffected by concurrent load, indicating that a constant search template for a single feature may be maintained outside vWM in a different store. In addition, early visual N1 components to search and memory test displays were attenuated under high load, suggesting a competition between external and internal attention. The size of this attenuation predicted individual vWM performance. These results provide new electrophysiological evidence for impairment of top–down attentional control mechanisms by high vWM load, demonstrating that vWM is involved in the guidance of attentional target selection during search.

During the retention of visual information in working memory, event-related brain potentials show a sustained negativity over posterior visual regions contralateral to the side where memorized stimuli were presented. This contralateral delay activity (CDA) is generally believed to be a neural marker of working memory storage. In two experiments, we contrasted this storage account of the CDA with the alternative hypothesis that the CDA reflects the current focus of spatial attention on a subset of memorized items set up during the most recent encoding episode. We employed a sequential loading procedure where participants memorized four task-relevant items that were presented in two successive memory displays (M1 and M2). In both experiments, CDA components were initially elicited contralateral to task-relevant items in M1. Critically, the CDA switched polarity when M2 displays appeared on the opposite side. In line with the attentional activation account, these reversed CDA components exclusively reflected the number of items that were encoded from M2 displays, irrespective of how many M1 items were already held in working memory. On trials where M1 and M2 displays were presented on the same side and on trials where M2 displays appeared nonlaterally, CDA components elicited in the interval after M2 remained sensitive to a residual trace of M1 items, indicating that some activation of previously stored items was maintained across encoding episodes. These results challenge the hypothesis that CDA amplitudes directly reflect the total number of stored objects and suggest that the CDA is primarily sensitive to the activation of a subset of working memory representations within the current focus of spatial attention.