@article{
 title = {A role for spatial and nonspatial working memory processes in visual search},
 type = {article},
 year = {2008},
 identifiers = {[object Object]},
 keywords = {Dual processing,Selective attention},
 pages = {301-312},
 volume = {55},
 id = {86ded153-dbf4-358f-a45e-43cfc73a363a},
 created = {2018-11-25T00:02:14.895Z},
 file_attached = {false},
 profile_id = {320a2cca-e89a-3024-8447-b202ac8efe57},
 group_id = {7892e183-6319-3aa8-81a6-79433434800e},
 last_modified = {2018-11-25T00:02:14.895Z},
 read = {false},
 starred = {false},
 authored = {false},
 confirmed = {true},
 hidden = {false},
 citation_key = {anderson2008role},
 source_type = {article},
 private_publication = {false},
 abstract = {Searching a cluttered visual scene for a specific item of interest\ncan take several seconds to perform if the target item is difficult\nto discriminate from surrounding items. Whether working memory processes\nare utilized to guide the path of attentional selection during such\nsearches remains under debate. Previous studies have found evidence\nto support a role for spatial working memory in inefficient search,\nbut the role of nonspatial working memory remains unclear. Here,\nwe directly compared the role of spatial and nonspatial working memory\nfor both an efficient and inefficient search task. In Experiment\n1, we used a dual-task paradigm to investigate the effect of performing\nvisual search within the retention interval of a spatial working\nmemory task. Importantly, by incorporating two working memory loads\n(low and high) we were able to make comparisons between dual-task\nconditions, rather than between dual-task and single-task conditions.\nThis design allows any interference effects observed to be attributed\nto changes in memory load, rather than to nonspecific effects related\nto "dual-task" performance. We found that the efficiency of the inefficient\nsearch task declined as spatial memory load increased, but that the\nefficient search task remained efficient. These results suggest that\nspatial memory plays an important role in inefficient but not efficient\nsearch. In Experiment 2, participants performed the same visual search\ntasks within the retention interval of visually matched spatial and\nverbal working memory tasks. Critically, we found comparable dual-task\ninterference between inefficient search and both the spatial and\nnonspatial working memory tasks, indicating that inefficient search\nrecruits working memory processes common to both domains. (PsycINFO\nDatabase Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)},
 bibtype = {article},
 author = {Anderson, Elaine J. and Mannan, Sabira K. and Rees, Geraint and Sumner, Petroc and Kennard, Christopher},
 journal = {Experimental Psychology},
 number = {5}
}

{"_id":"S83yuQsWjmExnyNkL","bibbaseid":"anderson-mannan-rees-sumner-kennard-aroleforspatialandnonspatialworkingmemoryprocessesinvisualsearch-2008","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-11-26T11:52:23.835Z","title":"A role for spatial and nonspatial working memory processes in visual search","author_short":["Anderson, E., J.","Mannan, S., K.","Rees, G.","Sumner, P.","Kennard, C."],"year":2008,"bibtype":"article","biburl":null,"bibdata":{"title":"A role for spatial and nonspatial working memory processes in visual search","type":"article","year":"2008","identifiers":"[object Object]","keywords":"Dual processing,Selective attention","pages":"301-312","volume":"55","id":"86ded153-dbf4-358f-a45e-43cfc73a363a","created":"2018-11-25T00:02:14.895Z","file_attached":false,"profile_id":"320a2cca-e89a-3024-8447-b202ac8efe57","group_id":"7892e183-6319-3aa8-81a6-79433434800e","last_modified":"2018-11-25T00:02:14.895Z","read":false,"starred":false,"authored":false,"confirmed":"true","hidden":false,"citation_key":"anderson2008role","source_type":"article","private_publication":false,"abstract":"Searching a cluttered visual scene for a specific item of interest\\ncan take several seconds to perform if the target item is difficult\\nto discriminate from surrounding items. Whether working memory processes\\nare utilized to guide the path of attentional selection during such\\nsearches remains under debate. Previous studies have found evidence\\nto support a role for spatial working memory in inefficient search,\\nbut the role of nonspatial working memory remains unclear. Here,\\nwe directly compared the role of spatial and nonspatial working memory\\nfor both an efficient and inefficient search task. In Experiment\\n1, we used a dual-task paradigm to investigate the effect of performing\\nvisual search within the retention interval of a spatial working\\nmemory task. Importantly, by incorporating two working memory loads\\n(low and high) we were able to make comparisons between dual-task\\nconditions, rather than between dual-task and single-task conditions.\\nThis design allows any interference effects observed to be attributed\\nto changes in memory load, rather than to nonspecific effects related\\nto \"dual-task\" performance. We found that the efficiency of the inefficient\\nsearch task declined as spatial memory load increased, but that the\\nefficient search task remained efficient. These results suggest that\\nspatial memory plays an important role in inefficient but not efficient\\nsearch. In Experiment 2, participants performed the same visual search\\ntasks within the retention interval of visually matched spatial and\\nverbal working memory tasks. Critically, we found comparable dual-task\\ninterference between inefficient search and both the spatial and\\nnonspatial working memory tasks, indicating that inefficient search\\nrecruits working memory processes common to both domains. (PsycINFO\\nDatabase Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)","bibtype":"article","author":"Anderson, Elaine J. and Mannan, Sabira K. and Rees, Geraint and Sumner, Petroc and Kennard, Christopher","journal":"Experimental Psychology","number":"5","bibtex":"@article{\n title = {A role for spatial and nonspatial working memory processes in visual search},\n type = {article},\n year = {2008},\n identifiers = {[object Object]},\n keywords = {Dual processing,Selective attention},\n pages = {301-312},\n volume = {55},\n id = {86ded153-dbf4-358f-a45e-43cfc73a363a},\n created = {2018-11-25T00:02:14.895Z},\n file_attached = {false},\n profile_id = {320a2cca-e89a-3024-8447-b202ac8efe57},\n group_id = {7892e183-6319-3aa8-81a6-79433434800e},\n last_modified = {2018-11-25T00:02:14.895Z},\n read = {false},\n starred = {false},\n authored = {false},\n confirmed = {true},\n hidden = {false},\n citation_key = {anderson2008role},\n source_type = {article},\n private_publication = {false},\n abstract = {Searching a cluttered visual scene for a specific item of interest\\ncan take several seconds to perform if the target item is difficult\\nto discriminate from surrounding items. Whether working memory processes\\nare utilized to guide the path of attentional selection during such\\nsearches remains under debate. Previous studies have found evidence\\nto support a role for spatial working memory in inefficient search,\\nbut the role of nonspatial working memory remains unclear. Here,\\nwe directly compared the role of spatial and nonspatial working memory\\nfor both an efficient and inefficient search task. In Experiment\\n1, we used a dual-task paradigm to investigate the effect of performing\\nvisual search within the retention interval of a spatial working\\nmemory task. Importantly, by incorporating two working memory loads\\n(low and high) we were able to make comparisons between dual-task\\nconditions, rather than between dual-task and single-task conditions.\\nThis design allows any interference effects observed to be attributed\\nto changes in memory load, rather than to nonspecific effects related\\nto \"dual-task\" performance. We found that the efficiency of the inefficient\\nsearch task declined as spatial memory load increased, but that the\\nefficient search task remained efficient. These results suggest that\\nspatial memory plays an important role in inefficient but not efficient\\nsearch. In Experiment 2, participants performed the same visual search\\ntasks within the retention interval of visually matched spatial and\\nverbal working memory tasks. Critically, we found comparable dual-task\\ninterference between inefficient search and both the spatial and\\nnonspatial working memory tasks, indicating that inefficient search\\nrecruits working memory processes common to both domains. (PsycINFO\\nDatabase Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)},\n bibtype = {article},\n author = {Anderson, Elaine J. and Mannan, Sabira K. and Rees, Geraint and Sumner, Petroc and Kennard, Christopher},\n journal = {Experimental Psychology},\n number = {5}\n}","author_short":["Anderson, E., J.","Mannan, S., K.","Rees, G.","Sumner, P.","Kennard, C."],"bibbaseid":"anderson-mannan-rees-sumner-kennard-aroleforspatialandnonspatialworkingmemoryprocessesinvisualsearch-2008","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Dual processing","Selective attention"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["role","spatial","nonspatial","working","memory","processes","visual","search","anderson","mannan","rees","sumner","kennard"],"keywords":["dual processing","selective attention"],"authorIDs":[]}