Working memory is thought to serve as a buffer for ongoing cognitive operations, even in tasks that have no obvious memory requirements. This conceptualization has been supported by dual-task experiments, in which interference is observed between a primary task involving short-term memory storage and a secondary task that presumably requires the same buffer as the primary task. Little or no interference is typically observed when the secondary task is very simple. Here, we test the hypothesis that even very simple tasks require the working memory buffer, but interference can be minimized by using activity-silent representations to store the information from the primary task. We tested this hypothesis using dual-task paradigm in which a simple discrimination task was interposed in the retention interval of a change detection task. We used contralateral delay activity (CDA) to track the active maintenance of information for the change detection task. We found that the CDA was massively disrupted after the interposed task. Despite this disruption of active maintenance, we found that performance in the change detection task was only slightly impaired, suggesting that activity-silent representations were used to retain the information for the change detection task. A second experiment replicated this result and also showed that automated discriminations could be performed without producing a large CDA disruption. Together, these results suggest that simple but non-automated discrimination tasks require the same processes that underlie active maintenance of information in working memory.

Feature-based attentional selection is accomplished by increasing the gain of sensory neurons encoding target-relevant features while decreasing that of other features. But how do these mechanisms work when targets and distractors share features? We investigated this in a simplified color–shape conjunction search task using ERP components (N2pc, P D , and SPCN) that index lateralized attentional processing. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the presence and frequency of color distractors while holding shape distractors constant. We tested the hypothesis that the color distractor would capture attention, requiring active suppression such that processing of the target can continue. Consistent with this hypothesis, we found that color distractors consistently captured attention, as indexed by a significant N2pc, but were reactively suppressed (indexed by P D ). Interestingly, when the color distractor was present, target processing was sustained (indexed by SPCN), suggesting that the dynamics of attentional competition involved distractor suppression interlinked with sustained target processing. In Experiment 2, we examined the contribution of shape to the dynamics of attentional competition under similar conditions. In contrast to color distractors, shape distractors did not reliably capture attention, even when the color distractor was very frequent and attending to target shape would be beneficial. Together, these results suggest that target-colored objects are prioritized during color–shape conjunction search, and the ability to select the target is delayed while target-colored distractors are actively suppressed.

Researchers have long debated how salient-but-irrelevant features guide visual attention. Pure stimulus-driven theories claim that salient stimuli automatically capture attention irrespective of goals, whereas pure goal-driven theories propose that an individual's attentional control settings determine whether salient stimuli capture attention. However, recent studies have suggested a hybrid model in which salient stimuli attract visual attention but can be actively suppressed by top–down attentional mechanisms. Support for this hybrid model has primarily come from ERP studies demonstrating that salient stimuli, which fail to capture attention, also elicit a distractor positivity (P D ) component, a putative neural index of suppression. Other support comes from a handful of behavioral studies showing that processing at the salient locations is inhibited compared with other locations. The current study was designed to link the behavioral and neural evidence by combining ERP recordings with an experimental paradigm that provides a behavioral measure of suppression. We found that, when a salient distractor item elicited the P D component, processing at the location of this distractor was suppressed below baseline levels. Furthermore, the magnitude of behavioral suppression and the magnitude of the P D component covaried across participants. These findings provide a crucial connection between the behavioral and neural measures of suppression, which opens the door to using the P D component to assess the timing and neural substrates of the behaviorally observed suppression.

Although the performance of simple cognitive tasks can be enhanced if an incentive is provided, the mechanisms enabling such motivational control are not known. This study sought to uncover how mechanisms of attention and readiness are altered by reward-associated incentive stimuli. We measured EEG/ERP activity as human adults viewed a high- or low-incentive cue, experienced a short preparation interval, and then performed a simple visual search task to gain the predicted reward. Search performance was faster with high versus low incentives, and this was accompanied by distinct incentive-related EEG/ERP patterns at each phase of the task (incentive, preparation, and search). First, and most surprisingly, attention to high but not low incentive cues was actively suppressed, as indexed by a P D component in response to the incentive display. During the subsequent preparation interval, neural oscillations in the alpha frequency range were reduced after high-incentive cues, indicating heightened visual readiness. Finally, attentional orienting to the target in the search array was deployed with relatively little effort on high-incentive trials, as indexed by a reduced N2pc component. These results reveal the chain of events by which the brain's executive control mechanisms respond to incentives by altering the operation of multiple processing systems to produce optimal performance.

When the distance between a visual target and nearby flankers falls below a critical distance, target discrimination declines precipitously. This is called “crowding.” Many researchers have proposed that selective attention plays a role in crowding. However, although some research has examined the effects of directing attention toward versus away from the targets, no previous research has assessed how attentional allocation varies as a function of target–flanker distance in crowding. Here, we used ERPs to assess the operation of attention during crowding, focusing on the attention-related N2pc component. We used a typical crowding task in which participants were asked to report the category (vowel/consonant) of a lateralized target letter flanked by distractor letters at different distances. We tested the hypothesis that attention fails when the target–flanker distance becomes too small for attention to operate effectively. Consistent with this hypothesis, we found that N2pc amplitude was maximal at intermediate target–flanker distances and decreased substantially when crowding became severe. In addition, we examined the sustained posterior contralateral negativity (SPCN), which reflects the amount of information being maintained in working memory. Unlike the N2pc component, the SPCN increased in amplitude at small target–flanker distances, suggesting that observers stored information about the target and flankers in working memory when attention failed to select the target. Together, the N2pc and SPCN results suggest that attention and working memory play distinctive roles in crowding: Attention operates to minimize interference from the flankers at intermediate target–flanker distances, whereas working memory may be recruited when attention fails to select the target at small target–flanker distances.

Spatial attention must adjust around an object of interest in a manner that reflects the object's size on the retina as well as the proximity of distracting objects, a process often guided by nonspatial features. This study used ERPs to investigate how quickly the size of this type of “attentional window” can adjust around a fixated target object defined by its color and whether this variety of attention influences the feedforward flow of subsequent information through the visual system. The task involved attending either to a circular region at fixation or to a surrounding annulus region, depending on which region contained an attended color. The region containing the attended color varied randomly from trial to trial, so the spatial distribution of attention had to be adjusted on each trial. We measured the initial sensory ERP response elicited by an irrelevant probe stimulus that appeared in one of the two regions at different times after task display onset. This allowed us to measure the amount of time required to adjust spatial attention on the basis of the location of the task-relevant feature. We found that the probe-elicited sensory response was larger when the probe occurred within the region of the attended dots, and this effect required a delay of approximately 175 msec between the onset of the task display and the onset of the probe. Thus, the window of attention is rapidly adjusted around the point of fixation in a manner that reflects the spatial extent of a task-relevant stimulus, leading to changes in the feedforward flow of subsequent information through the visual system.

Attention operates at an early stage in some experimental paradigms and at a late stage in others, which suggests that the locus of selection is flexible. The present study was designed to determine whether the locus of selection can vary flexibly within a single experimental paradigm as a function of relatively modest variations in stimulus and task parameters. In the first experiment, a new method for assessing the locus of selection was developed. Specifically, attention can influence perceptual encoding only if it is directed to the target before a perceptual representation of the target has been formed, whereas attention can influence postperceptual processes even if attention is cued after perception is complete. Event-related potentials were used to confirm the validity of this method. The subsequent experiments used cueing tasks in which subjects were required to perceive and remember a set of objects, and the difficulty of the perception and memory components of the task were varied. When the task overloaded perception but not working memory, attention influenced the formation of perceptual representations but not the storage of these representations in memory; when the task overloaded working memory but not perception, attention influenced the transfer of perceptual representations into memory but not the formation of the perceptual representations. Thus, attention operates to select relevant information at whatever stage or stages of processing are overloaded by a particular stimulus-task combination.

Motion information tends to be segregated from color and form information in the visual system, both perceptually and neuroanatomically, and it is therefore possible that different mechanisms of attention are used to select targets defined by these different feature types during visual search. To test this hypothesis, we recorded the N2pc component of the event-related potential waveform during visual search tasks with color, orientation, and motion targets. The N2pc component has previously been shown to reflect a specific attentional mechanism that is present for color and form targets, and we sought to determine whether this component would also be present for motion targets. The N2pc component was indeed observed for motion targets as well as color and orientation targets, consistent with the use of a common attentional mechanism across feature types. In addition, we found that motion singletons (i.e., individual items that moved in the opposite direction from the other items in the army) elicited an N2pc component even when they were task-irrelevant, indicating that motion discontinuities may produce an automatic orienting of attention.

Previous studies of visuospatial attention indicated that the isolated cerebral hemispheres of split-brain patients maintain an integrated, unitary focus of attention, presumably due to subcortical attentional mechanisms. The present study examined whether a unitary attentional focus would also be observed during a visual search task in which subjects scanned stimulus arrays for a target item. In a group of four commis-surotomy patients, the search rate for bilateral stimulus arrays was found to be approximately twice as fast as the search rate for unilateral arrays, indicating that the separated hemispheres were able to scan their respective hemifields independently. In contrast, the search rates for unilateral and bilateral arrays were approximately equal in a group of six normal control subjects, suggesting that the intact corpus callosum in these subjects is responsible for maintaining a unitary attentional focus during visual search.

When subjects are explicitly cued to focus attention on a particular location in visual space, targets presented at that location have been shown to elicit enhanced sensory-evoked activity in recordings of event-related brain potentials (ERPs). The present study sought to determine if this type of sensory facilitation also occurs during visual search tasks in which a feature conjunction target must be identified, presumably by means of focal attention, within an array of distractor items. In this experiment, subjects were required to discriminate the shape of a distinctively colored target item within an array containing 15 distractor items, and ERPs were elicited by task-irrelevant probe stimuli that were presented at the location of the target item or at the location of a distractor item on the opposite side of the array. When the delay between search-array onset and probe onset was 250 msec, the sensory-evoked responses in the latency range 75-200 msec were larger for probes presented at the location of the target than for probes presented at the location of the irrelevant distractor. These results indicate that sensory processing is modulated in a spatially restricted manner during visual search, and that focusing attention on a feature conjunction target engages neural systems that are shared with other forms of visual-spatial attention.