Influence of early attentional modulation on working memory - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

Influence of early attentional modulation on working memory

Adam Gazzaley. Neuropsychologia. 2011 May.

Abstract

It is now established that attention influences working memory (WM) at multiple processing stages. This liaison between attention and WM poses several interesting empirical questions. Notably, does attention impact WM via its influences on early perceptual processing? If so, what are the critical factors at play in this attention-perception-WM interaction. I review recent data from our laboratory utilizing a variety of techniques (electroencephalography (EEG), functional MRI (fMRI) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)), stimuli (features and complex objects), novel experimental paradigms, and research populations (younger and older adults), which converge to support the conclusion that top-down modulation of visual cortical activity at early perceptual processing stages (100-200 ms after stimulus onset) impacts subsequent WM performance. Factors that affect attentional control at this stage include cognitive load, task practice, perceptual training, and aging. These developments highlight the complex and dynamic relationships among perception, attention, and memory.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1

Basic experimental paradigm with the following timing parameters. 1) Cue stimuli: 800 ms, time between cue stimuli: 200 ms, Delay period: 9 sec, Probe stimuli: 1000 ms (Gazzaley, et al., 2008; Gazzaley, Cooney, McEvoy, et al., 2005; Gazzaley, et al., 2007). 2) Cue stimuli: 800 ms, time between cue stimuli: 200 ms, Delay period: 7 sec, Probe stimuli: 1000 ms (Rissman, et al., 2009). 3) Cue stimuli: 400 ms, time between cue stimuli: 600 ms, Delay period: (jittered) 8,10,12 sec, Probe stimuli: 2 sec (Krawczyk, et al., 2007).

Figure 2

Basic experimental paradigm with the following timing parameters. 1) Cue stimuli: 800 ms, time between cue stimuli: 200 ms, Delay period: 4 sec, Probe stimuli: 500 ms (Rutman, et al., 2010). 2) Cue stimuli: 800 ms, time between cue stimuli: 400 ms, Delay period: 8 sec, Probe stimuli: 1000 ms (Chadick & Gazzaley, 2008; Chadick & Gazzaley, Submitted).

Figure 3

Top-down modulation of the P1 component and its relationship with WM performance. A, Grand Average waveform of P1 (n=19); B, P1 peak amplitudes (n=19); C, Neural-behavioral correlation. All peak amplitudes of memory tasks show significant differences across tasks (PV-O is not significantly different than FM-O or SM-O). Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Asterisks denote significant difference (single - p<0.05, double, - p<0.01, triple, p<0.0001. C, Measures of attentional modulation (P1 Modulation Index) correlate significantly with working memory recognition (Accuracy Index). Participants with greater attentional modulation of P1 amplitude (~100ms post-stimulus presentation) show greater subsequent memory of encoded stimuli (R=0.45, p<0.05). Face memory-overlap (FM-O), Scene memory-overlap (SM-O), Passive view-overlap (PV-O), Face memory (FM), Scene memory (SM). Modified from (Rutman, et al., 2010).

Figure 4

Basic experimental paradigm with the following timing parameters. 1) Cue stimuli: 800 ms, time between cue stimuli: 200 ms, Delay period: 4 sec, Probe stimuli: 800 ms (Zanto & Gazzaley, 2009, Submitted; Zanto, Rubens, et al., 2010; Zanto, Toy, et al., 2010). 2) Cue stimuli: 800 ms, time between cue stimuli: 1200 ms, Delay period: 8 sec, Probe stimuli: 800 ms (Zanto & Gazzaley, Submitted; Zanto, Rubens, et al., 2010). White arrows indicate motion and were not present during the experiment, except in the probe for the Passive view.

Figure 5

Attentional modulation and WM performance. A, ERP waveform for attended (solid line) and ignored (dashed line) motion stimuli. Attentional modulation is observed at the P1. B, Comparison of the P1 modulation index (difference between attended and ignored stimuli) across different trial groupings: all trials, low- and high-performance trials. C, ERP waveforms for attended (solid line) and ignored (dashed line) colored stimuli. D, Comparison of the N1 modulation index. Asterisks indicate a significant difference between attend and ignore, whereas the bracket indicates a significant difference between indices (Zanto & Gazzaley, 2009).

Figure 6

ERP comparisons between low- and high- WM performance trials. Low-performance (dark gray line) and high-performance (light gray line) trials for attended and ignored stimuli. Inset bar graphs compare designated peak ERP measures between low- and high-performance trials. A, No differences observed between low- and high- performance at the P1 peak when attending to motion, or B, the N1 peak when attending to color. B, When participants are instructed to ignore color, an enhanced N1 is observed during low-performance trials, which is similar in magnitude to the N1 when attending to color (dashed line - waveform from C). D, When instructed to ignore motion, an enhanced P1 is observed during low-performance trials that is similar in magnitude to the P1 when attending to motion (dashed line - waveform from A) (Zanto & Gazzaley, 2009).

Figure 7

Basic experimental paradigm with the following timing parameters. 1) Cue stimuli: 800 ms, Delay 1 period: 2.8–3.2 sec, Interference Stimuli: 800 ms, Delay 2 period: 2.8–3.2 sec, Probe stimuli: 1000 ms (Clapp & Gazzaley, 2010; Clapp, et al., 2010). 2) Cue stimuli: 800 ms, Delay 1 period: 7.2 sec, Interference Stimuli: 800 ms, Delay 2 period: 7.2 sec, Probe stimuli: 1000 ms (Clapp, et al., 2010; Clapp, et al., Submitted).

Figure 8

Modulation of Occipito-Temporal Electrode of Interest ERPs: A & C) ERPs to interruptors (IS), passively-viewed stimuli (PV) and distractors (DS). A) P100 amplitude reveals significant enhancement. B) The amount that participants allocate attention towards an interruptor (IS, enhancement) negatively correlates with their WM performance (R=−0.7, p < .001). Likewise, the amount of attention allocated away from a distractor (DS, suppression) positively correlates with WM (R= 0.5, p < .05). C) N170 results showing significant enhancement of the N170 Latency. D) The same significant correlations were obtained as for the P100, such that the amount of attention allocated towards the interruptor and away from distractors predicts WM performance (R=−0.76, p < .0001, R=.64, p < .005 respectively) (Clapp, et al., 2010)

Figure 9

Basic experimental paradigm with the following timing parameters. Cue stimuli: 800 ms, Delay 1 period: 2.8–3 sec, Interference Stimuli: 800 ms, Delay 2 period: 2.8–3 sec, Probe stimuli: 800 ms (Berry, et al., 2010; Berry, et al., 2009). White arrows indicate motion and were not present during the experiment, except in the probe for the Passive view.

Figure 10

EEG data revealing an age-related deficit in top-down suppression in the earliest measures: P1 amplitude and N1 latency. All within-group t-tests are designated as significant by brackets (P < .05). The asterisk denotes that only P1 amplitude and N1 latency revealed a significant age × task interaction plus a significant across-group suppression deficit. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean (Gazzaley, et al., 2008).

Figure 11

ERPs during stimulus encoding and relationship with WM performance. Posterior occipital N1 amplitude (120–220 ms) significantly decreased at T2 for the A) training, but not B) control group. Statistics are based on electrode of interest (EOI) clusters selected for each participant. Scalp topographies of T2-T1 at the latency of mean N1 peak +/− 1sd illustrate the location of the training related functional plasticity. C, Across participants, decreased N1 amplitude during encoding correlated with WM performance improvements (r = 0.82, p < 0.001) (Berry, et al., 2010).

References

1. Alain C, Snyder JS. Age-related differences in auditory evoked responses during rapid perceptual learning. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008;119(2):356–366. -PubMed
1. Awh E, Jonides J, Reuter-Lorenz P. Rehearsal in spatial working memory. Perceptual Peformance. 1998;24(3):780–790. -PubMed
1. Awh E, Vogel EK, Oh S-H. Interactions between attention and working memory. Neuroscience. 2006;139(1):201–208. -PubMed
1. Baddeley A. Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2003;4(10):829–839. -PubMed
1. Barbas H. Connections underlying the synthesis of cognition, memory, and emotion in primate prefrontal cortices. Brain Res Bull. 2000;52(5):319–330. -PubMed

Influence of early attentional modulation on working memory - PubMed (original) (raw)