% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Kizilirmak:155670,
author = {Kizilirmak, Jasmin and Glim, Sarah and Darna, Margarita and
Khader, Patrick H},
title = {{S}elective attention to stimulus representations in
perception and memory: commonalities and differences.},
journal = {Psychological research},
volume = {86},
number = {1},
issn = {1430-2772},
address = {Heidelberg},
publisher = {Springer},
reportid = {DZNE-2021-00838},
pages = {150-169},
year = {2022},
note = {(CC BY)},
abstract = {It has been proposed that the deployment of selective
attention to perceptual and memory representations might be
governed by similar cognitive processes and neural
resources. However, evidence for this simple and appealing
proposal remains inconclusive, which might be due to a
considerable divergence in tasks and cognitive demands when
comparing attentional selection in memory versus perception.
To examine whether selection in both domains share common
attentional processes and only differ in the stimuli they
act upon (external vs. internal), we compared behavioral
costs or benefits between selection domains. In both
domains, participants had to attend a target stimulus from a
set of simultaneously presented stimuli or simultaneously
active memory representations, respectively, with set,
target, or both, being repeated or changed across trials.
The results of two experiments delineated principal
similarities and differences of selection processes in both
domains: While positive priming from stimulus repetition was
found in both selection domains, we found no consistent
effects of negative priming when shifting the focus of
attention to a previously to-be-ignored stimulus. However,
priming in the perception task was mainly due to repetitions
of the target feature (here: color), whereas for the memory
task, repetition of the same set of stimulus representations
was most important. We propose that the differences can be
attributed to a reduced cognitive effort when the now
relevant memory representation had already been
pre-activated (even as a distractor) in the previous trial.
Additionally, our experiments both underscore the importance
of taking stimulus-response associations into account, which
may be a hidden factor behind differences between domains.
We conclude that any attempt of comparing internal versus
external attentional selection has to consider inherent
differences in selection dynamics across representational
domains.},
keywords = {Attention / Humans / Perception / Visual Perception},
cin = {AG Wiltfang},
ddc = {150},
cid = {I:(DE-2719)1410006},
pnm = {353 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF4-353)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pmc = {pmc:PMC8821477},
pubmed = {pmid:33486589},
doi = {10.1007/s00426-020-01469-z},
url = {https://pub.dzne.de/record/155670},
}