Home > Publications Database > Selective attention to stimulus representations in perception and memory: commonalities and differences. > print

001     155670
005     20240320115512.0
024 7 _ |a pmc:PMC8821477
|2 pmc
024 7 _ |a 10.1007/s00426-020-01469-z
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:33486589
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a 0033-3026
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 0340-0727
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 1430-2772
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a altmetric:98664737
|2 altmetric
037 _ _ |a DZNE-2021-00838
041 _ _ |a English
082 _ _ |a 150
100 1 _ |a Kizilirmak, Jasmin
|0 P:(DE-2719)9000615
|b 0
|e First author
|u dzne
245 _ _ |a Selective attention to stimulus representations in perception and memory: commonalities and differences.
260 _ _ |a Heidelberg
|c 2022
|b Springer
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1655199259_927
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
500 _ _ |a (CC BY)
520 _ _ |a 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.
536 _ _ |a 353 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF4-353)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353
|c POF4-353
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to DataCite
650 _ 2 |a Attention
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Humans
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Perception
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Visual Perception
|2 MeSH
700 1 _ |a Glim, Sarah
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Darna, Margarita
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Khader, Patrick H
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 3
|e Corresponding author
773 _ _ |a 10.1007/s00426-020-01469-z
|0 PERI:(DE-600)1463034-5
|n 1
|p 150-169
|t Psychological research
|v 86
|y 2022
|x 1430-2772
856 4 _ |u https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00426-020-01469-z
856 4 _ |u https://pub.dzne.de/record/155670/files/DZNE-2021-00838.pdf
|y OpenAccess
856 4 _ |u https://pub.dzne.de/record/155670/files/DZNE-2021-00838.pdf?subformat=pdfa
|x pdfa
|y OpenAccess
909 C O |o oai:pub.dzne.de:155670
|p openaire
|p open_access
|p VDB
|p driver
|p dnbdelivery
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen
|0 I:(DE-588)1065079516
|k DZNE
|b 0
|6 P:(DE-2719)9000615
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Gesundheit
|l Neurodegenerative Diseases
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-350
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Clinical and Health Care Research
|x 0
913 0 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Gesundheit
|l Erkrankungen des Nervensystems
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-340
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-342
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF3
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Disease Mechanisms and Model Systems
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2022
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2022-11-15
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2022-11-15
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1050
|2 StatID
|b BIOSIS Previews
|d 2022-11-15
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1190
|2 StatID
|b Biological Abstracts
|d 2021-01-31
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0600
|2 StatID
|b Ebsco Academic Search
|d 2022-11-15
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b PSYCHOL RES-PSYCH FO : 2021
|d 2022-11-15
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1180
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Social and Behavioral Sciences
|d 2022-11-15
915 _ _ |a IF < 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9900
|2 StatID
|d 2022-11-15
915 _ _ |a DEAL Springer
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)3002
|2 StatID
|d 2021-01-31
|w ger
915 _ _ |a OpenAccess
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0510
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b ASC
|d 2022-11-15
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0130
|2 StatID
|b Social Sciences Citation Index
|d 2022-11-15
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0160
|2 StatID
|b Essential Science Indicators
|d 2021-01-31
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBY4
|2 HGFVOC
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2022-11-15
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-2719)1410006
|k AG Wiltfang
|l Alzheimer Biomarker and Clinical Study Group
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-2719)1410006
980 1 _ |a FullTexts

LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21