Memory-guided attention: control from multiple memory systems

Abstract

Attention is strongly influenced by both external stimuli and internal goals. However, this useful dichotomy does not readily capture the ubiquitous and often automatic contribution of past experience stored in memory. We review recent evidence about how multiple memory systems control attention, consider how such interactions are manifested in the brain, and highlight how this framework for 'memory-guided attention' might help systematize previous findings and guide future research.

Figure 1. Behavioral examples of memory-guided attention

(a) Associative learning: Visual search arrays occasionally interrupted four parallel streams of shapes that were task-irrelevant. Targets were discriminated more quickly when they appeared at a stream location where the order of shapes was generated from hidden triplets that repeated over time (‘structured’) versus at a stream location where the order of shapes was shuffled (‘random’), showing that attention is biased towards regularities [adapted from 7]. (b) Working memory: The orientation of the tilted line target was discriminated during the maintenance period of a delayed match-to-sample task. The target line appeared in a shape that matched the shape held in working memory (‘valid’), the distractor line appeared in this matching shape instead (‘invalid’), or the matching shape was not presented (‘neutral’). Discrimination was slowest in the invalid condition, showing that attention is drawn towards the contents of working memory [adapted from 8]. (c) Episodic memory: Scenes that did (‘memory’) or did not (‘neutral’) contain a search target were encoded into long-term memory. The next day, these scenes were presented as cues, but now all without a target, followed by visual search for the target. Detection was faster after memory cues than after neutral cues, showing that episodic memory can guide attention to previously useful locations [adapted from 9]. (d) Semantic memory: Visual search arrays did (‘related’) or did not (‘unrelated’) contain a distractor that was semantically related to a verbally cued target object. Correct rejections were slower when related distractors were present, showing that attention is attracted to items that are semantically related to goal-relevant information [adapted from 12].