FROM TOP TO BOTTOM:
Transcript: F(1, 51)=6.67, p=0.013; =0.12 F(2,58)=7.14, p=0.002; =0.15 'yes' -visually salient object (abrupt onset) Visuospatial working memory - predictions partially confirmed: there were no interactions in maintenance stage, however, in retrieving stage some effects were obtained that were driven by probe position whether task irrelevant space-related word meaning would be strong enough to affect processes in visuospatial working memory It is unclear how other sort of information could affect content of visuospatial working memory Experiment 2. Results Interaction between word and dot location, discrimination task, accuracy data Additional analysis main effect of dot location (F(1, 51)=4.56, p=0,037; =0.08). Research question 1 experiment, Results Conclusion -irrelevant information should be salient enough to affect maintenance of visual location (Smyth, 1994) -RT at memorized location is better than at non-memorized (Awh et al., 1998) >>>> >>>>if dot location and probe position share space RT will be faster if they do not share space ('UP' dot location+ 'UP' probe position is faster than 'UP' dot location+ 'DOWN' probe position) - both tasks word meaning is activated automatically (Logan, 1997; Neely & Kahan, 2001) space-related word (up, down) elicits attention shifts (Hommel et al., 2001) irrelevant space-related word meaning interacts with word physical position (Spatial Stroop effect) F(1, 42)=9.98, p=0.003; =0.19 -activation of upper space resulted in better performance, concerning identification an categorization -activation of lower space resulted in worse performance, concerning identification and categorization, but better performance for spatial identification 'no' - 'down' word made visual field asymmetry is more pronounced -'down' word made visual location more tangible in the space - relevant and non-relevant information could compete, if irrelevant one is novel, salient, personally important (Cowan, 1988; Cowan, 1993; Cowan, 1995) Location recognition task, RT interaction between dot location and probe position (F(1, 28)=5.09, p=0.032; =0.15 (F(2, 84)=9.41, p=0.000; =0.18 Interaction between word and probe position, discrimination task, RT -maintenance and manipulate relevant visuospatial information ; symbols: @&%# - word would affect speed of probe categorization, irrespective of dot location, 'up' word facilitate processing of 'up' probes, 'down' word - 'down' probes 3 (word: up vs. down vs. symbols) x 2 dot location (up vs. down) x 2 probe position (up vs. down) Experiment 1 2 (dot location: up vs. down) x 2 (probe position: up vs. down) - 'down' word eliminated privilege of upper field for object categorization (RT, accuracy) 1 experiment Is working memory sensitive to irrelevant information? Experiment 1, Results - limited capacity system Experiments setup Location recognition task, RT interaction between probe position and dot location -'up' word would facilitate recognition of dots, 'down' word would inhibit it (RT data) Discrimination task, RT main effect of probe position Interaction between word and probe position, location recognition task, RT data, 'no' responses Experiment 2 Main predictions Procedure and design Experiment 2. Results -spatial attention and visuospatial working memory are interrelated Measurements: RT, accuracy 1 experiment Results Discrimination task, accuracy data F(1, 51)=5.63, p=0.021; =0.10 Interaction between word and dot location, location recognition, accuracy data, 'no' responses 'no' - evaluating of spatial position, re-checking of position 'yes' - identification of object Procedure and design -processing of stimuli at memorized location is faster than at non-memorized = =processing of stimuli at preattended place is faster than at non-preattended one words: 'gore', 'dolu' 1 experiment Is working memory sensitive to irrelevant information? Discrimination task Location recognition task, accuracy -maintenance of visual location -retrieving of location FROM TOP TO BOTTOM: DOES A WORD AFFECT PROCESSES IN VISUOSPATIAL WORKING MEMORY Semantic information Discrimination task, RT: main effect of probe position: F(1, 28)=4.95, p=0,034; = 0.15 - word would affect processing of probes, 'up' word would enhance discrimination, 'down' word would impair it (accuracy data) F(2, 58)=3.89, p=0.026; =0.12 Predictions - 'up' and 'down' words would affect recognition of probes depending on 'yes', 'no' condition (accuracy data) Experiment 2. Results Experiment 2. Results Location recognition task