The dual-task paradigm is widely used in studying the interaction between visual search and working memory. A number of studies showed that holding items in working memory delays the overall response time (RT) in visual search, but it does not affect the efficiency of search (i.e., the slope of the RT × set size function). Why the memory load merely affects the overall RT? Some researchers proposed that this load-effect on overall RT may be caused by factors that only affect response selection processes, while others argued that it may reflect the effect of visual working memory load on visual search. This study investigated the two competing hypotheses by measuring the threshold stimulus exposure duration (TSED) for successfully fulfilling a search task. Experiment 1 replicated the large overall RT difference with the RT method but only found a small though reliable overall TSED difference with the TSED method. Experiment 2, with better controls, found no TSED difference by manipulating the visual working memory load. Experiment 3 showed that the TSED is not influenced by processes in the response selection stage. The present findings suggest that the overall stimulus processing time in visual search is not affected by visual working memory load and that the effect of memory load on overall RT is largely due to factors affecting response selection alone.
Al-AidroosN.EmrichS. M.FerberS.PrattJ. (2012). Visual working memory supports the inhibition of previously processed information: Evidence from preview search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 643–663.
2.
AndersonE. J.MannanS. K.ReesG.SumnerP.KennardC. (2008). A role for spatial and nonspatial working memory processes in visual search. Experimental Psychology, 55, 301–312.
3.
DrewT.BoettcherS. E. P.WolfeJ. M. (2016). Searching while loaded: Visual working memory does not interfere with hybrid search efficiency but hybrid search uses working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 201–212.
4.
DubeB.BascianoA.EmrichS. M.Al-AidroosN. (2016). Visual working memory simultaneously guides facilitation and inhibition during visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 1232–1244.
5.
EmrichS. M.Al-AidroosN.PrattJ.FerberS. (2009). Visual search elicits the electrophysiological marker of visual working memory. PLoS ONE, 4, e8042.
6.
EmrichS. M.Al-AidroosN.PrattJ.FerberS. (2010). Finding memory in search: The effect of visual working memory load on visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1457–1466.
7.
EngH. Y.ChenD.JiangY. (2005). Visual working memory for simple and complex visual stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 1127–1133.
8.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
9.
GoonetillekeR. S.LauW. C.ShihH. M. (2002). Visual search strategies and eye movements when searching Chinese character screens. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 447–468.
10.
HanS.KimM. (2004). Visual search does not remain efficient when executive working memory is working. Psychological Science, 15, 623–628.
11.
HeJ.McCarleyJ. S. (2010). Executive working memory load does not compromise perceptual processing during visual search: Evidence from additive factors analysis. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 308–316.
12.
HollingworthA.BeckV. M. (2016). Memory-based attention capture when multiple items are maintained in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 911–917.
13.
HorowitzT. S.WolfeJ. M. (1998). Visual search has no memory. Nature, 394, 575–577.
14.
HorowitzT. S.WolfeJ. M. (2001). Search for multiple targets: Remember the targets, forget the search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 63, 272–285.
15.
HorowitzT. S.WolfeJ. M. (2003). Memory for rejected distractors in visual search?Visual Cognition, 10, 257–298.
16.
HullemanJ. (2009). No need for inhibitory tagging of locations in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 116–120.
17.
KimS. Y.KimM. S.ChunM. M. (2005). Concurrent working memory load can reduce distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16524–16529.
18.
KristjánssonÁ. (2000). In search of remembrance: Evidence for memory in visual search. Psychological Science, 11, 328–332.
19.
LiZ.LouJ. (2019). Flanker tasks based on congruency manipulation are biased measures of selective attention in perceptual load studies. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 81, 1836–1845. doi:10.3758/s13414-019-01730-7
20.
LiZ.XinK.LiW.LiY. (2018). Reconceptualizing perceptual load as a rate problem: The role of time in the allocation of selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 1458–1471.
21.
LiZ.XinK.LouJ.LiZ. (2019). Visual search may not require target representation in working memory or long-term memory. Psychological Science, 30, 1547–1555.
22.
LlerasA.RensinkR. A.EnnsJ. T. (2005). Rapid resumption of interrupted visual search: New insights on the interaction between vision and memory. Psychological Science, 16, 684–688.
23.
LuZ.DosherB. (2014). Visual psychophysics: From laboratory to theory (pp. 353–354). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
MatsukuraM.VeceraS. P. (2009). Interference between object-based attention and object-based memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 529–536.
25.
OhS. H.KimM. S. (2004). The role of spatial working memory in visual search efficiency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 275–281.
26.
OliversC. N.PetersJ.HoutkampR.RoelfsemaP. R. (2011). Different states in visual working memory: When it guides attention and when it does not. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 327–334.
27.
PetersonM. S.BeckM. R.VomelaM. (2007). Visual search is guided by prospective and retrospective memory. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 123–135.
28.
PetersonM. S.BeckM. R.WongJ. H. (2008). Were you paying attention to where you looked? The role of executive working memory in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 372–377.
29.
PetersonM. S.KramerA. F.WangR. F.IrwinD. E.MccarleyJ. S. (2001). Visual search has memory. Psychological Science, 12, 287–292.
30.
RickerT. J.HardmanK. O. (2017). The nature of short-term consolidation in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 1551–1573.
31.
RoseN. S.BuchsbaumB. R.CraikF. I. M. (2014). Short-term retention of a single word relies on retrieval from long-term memory when both rehearsal and refreshing are disrupted. Memory & Cognition, 42, 689–700.
32.
SimonJ. R.RudellA. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.
33.
TakedaY. (2004). Search for multiple targets: Evidence for memory-based control of attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 71–76.
34.
WoodmanG. F.LuckS. J. (2004). Visual search is slowed when visuospatial working memory is occupied. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 269–274.
35.
WoodmanG. F.LuckS. J. (2010). Why is information displaced from visual working memory during visual search?Visual Cognition, 18, 275–295.
36.
WoodmanG. F.LuckS. J.SchallJ. D. (2007). The role of working memory representations in the control of attention. Cerebral Cortex, 17(Suppl. 1), i118–i124.
37.
WoodmanG. F.VogelE. K.LuckS. J. (2001). Visual search remains efficient when visual working memory is full. Psychological Science, 12, 219–224.
