Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Which visual working memory model accounts best for target representation in the attentional blink?

View ORCID ProfileShuyao Wang, View ORCID ProfileAytaç Karabay, View ORCID ProfileElkan G. Akyürek
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.15.508098
Shuyao Wang
1Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Shuyao Wang
  • For correspondence: shuyao.wang@rug.nl
Aytaç Karabay
1Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
2Science Division, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, UAE
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Aytaç Karabay
Elkan G. Akyürek
1Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Elkan G. Akyürek
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

People often fail to detect the second of two targets when there is a short time interval of ∼500 msec or less between them. This phenomenon is known as the attentional blink (AB). Accumulating evidence suggests that the AB is a result of a failure to select and consolidate the second target in working memory. The current literature has assumed that the standard mixture model of visual working memory (VWM) explains representation in the AB better than resource-based VWM models. However, no existing study has systematically compared VWM models in the AB domain. Here, we present a comparison of eight widely-used VWM models in four different AB datasets from three separate laboratories. We fitted each model and computed the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) values at an individual level, across different conditions and experiments, based on which we compared the models by their average model ranks. We found that, for most experiments presented here, the standard mixture model, the slot model, and their variants do outperform the others. We nevertheless also observed that certain details, such as the stimuli or spatial arrangement of targets used in the AB task, can result in different model rankings. Our results can help researchers to select the best model for their AB studies in the future, and thereby gain a better understanding of their data.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Footnotes

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted September 17, 2022.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Which visual working memory model accounts best for target representation in the attentional blink?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Which visual working memory model accounts best for target representation in the attentional blink?
Shuyao Wang, Aytaç Karabay, Elkan G. Akyürek
bioRxiv 2022.09.15.508098; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.15.508098
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Which visual working memory model accounts best for target representation in the attentional blink?
Shuyao Wang, Aytaç Karabay, Elkan G. Akyürek
bioRxiv 2022.09.15.508098; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.15.508098

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Neuroscience
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4688)
  • Biochemistry (10379)
  • Bioengineering (7695)
  • Bioinformatics (26372)
  • Biophysics (13547)
  • Cancer Biology (10721)
  • Cell Biology (15460)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (8509)
  • Ecology (12842)
  • Epidemiology (2067)
  • Evolutionary Biology (16885)
  • Genetics (11416)
  • Genomics (15493)
  • Immunology (10638)
  • Microbiology (25254)
  • Molecular Biology (10239)
  • Neuroscience (54587)
  • Paleontology (402)
  • Pathology (1671)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2899)
  • Physiology (4355)
  • Plant Biology (9263)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1588)
  • Synthetic Biology (2561)
  • Systems Biology (6789)
  • Zoology (1470)