Environment and Social Psychology

Prioritization mechanisms in working memory modulate perceptual interference

Koeun Jung

Department of Psychology, Chonnam National University, 61186, Yongbong-ro 77, Gwangju, Korea

Suk Won Han

Department of Psychology, Chungnam National University, 34134, Daehak-ro 99, Daejeon, Korea

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i12.4303

Keywords: Prioritization; Working memory; Suffix interference

---

Abstract

Working memory provides temporary storage of information needed for immediate responses. Within this system, individuals can also prioritize certain items, enhancing the representation of those items. An ongoing debate concerns whether prioritized information is protected from or vulnerable to external stimuli remains debated. The present study examined how prioritization mechanisms of working memory interact with perceptual interference from external stimuli. Participants performed a working memory task in which item priority was manipulated using either value-based cues or spatial cues, presented either before encoding or during maintenance. Following the memory display, a to-be-ignored suffix item (a geometric shape) was either presented or omitted. In this way, we examined whether the extent of suffix interference would vary depending on the type and timing of prioritization. The results showed that the interference effect of suffix items on prioritized information is not consistent but is observed only under specific conditions. In particular, prioritized items were more susceptible to suffix interference only when high value was assigned before encoding. By contrast, when value-based prioritization was applied during maintenance, no such interference was observed. Similarly, spatial cueing-based prioritization protected prioritized items from suffix interference regardless of whether cues were given before encoding or during maintenance. These findings suggest that different forms and timings of prioritization in working memory interact distinctly with perceptual interference from irrelevant stimuli.

---

References

[1]. 1.Cowan, N. (2017). The many faces of working memory and short-term storage. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 24, 1158-1170. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1191-6

[2]. 2.Bays, P. M., Gorgoraptis, N., Wee, N., Marshall, L., & Husain, M. (2011). Temporal dynamics of encoding, storage, and reallocation of visual working memory. Journal of Vision, 11(10), 1-15.

[3]. 3.Gorgoraptis, N., Catalao, R. F., Bays, P. M., & Husain, M. (2011). Dynamic updating of working memory resources for visual objects. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(23), 8502-8511.

[4]. 4.Ravizza, S. M., Uitvlugt, M. G., & Hazeltine, E. (2016). Where to start? Bottom-up attention improves working memory by determining encoding order. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(12), 1959-1968.

[5]. 5.Schmidt, B. K., Vogel, E. K., Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2002). Voluntary and automatic attentional control of visual working memory. Perception & psychophysics, 64(5), 754-763.

[6]. 6.Jeanneret, S., Vergauwe, E., Hautekiet, C., & Langerock, N. (2025). What are the benefits of directed attention within verbal working memory? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(2), 337-369. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1177/17470218241299918

[7]. 7.Rerko, L., Souza, A. S., & Oberauer, K. (2014). Retro-cue benefits in working memory without sustained focal attention. Memory & cognition, 42(5), 712-728.

[8]. 8.Souza, A. S., Rerko, L., & Oberauer, K. (2016). Getting more from visual working memory: Retro-cues enhance retrieval and protect from visual interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(6), 890-910.

[9]. 9.Tanoue, R. T., & Berryhill, M. E. (2012). The mental wormhole: internal attention shifts without regard for distance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(6), 1199-1215.

[10]. 10.Gong, M., & Li, S. (2014). Learned reward association improves visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(2), 841-856.

[11]. 11.Infanti, E., Hickey, C., Menghi, N., & Turatto, M. (2017). Reward-priming impacts visual working memory maintenance: Evidence from human electrophysiology. Visual Cognition, 25(9-10), 956-971.

[12]. 12.Wallis, G., Stokes, M. G., Arnold, C., & Nobre, A. C. (2015). Reward boosts working memory encoding over a brief temporal window. Visual Cognition, 23(1-2), 291-312.

[13]. 13.Hitch, G. J., Allen, R. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2020). Attention and binding in visual working memory: Two forms of attention and two kinds of buffer storage. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(1), 280-293.

[14]. 14.Allen, R. J., & Ueno, T. (2018). Multiple high-reward items can be prioritized in working memory but with greater vulnerability to interference. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(7), 1731-1743. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1543-6

[15]. 15.Atkinson, A. L., Berry, E. D., Waterman, A. H., Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J., & Allen, R. J. (2018). Are there multiple ways to direct attention in working memory? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1424(1), 115-126.

[16]. 16.Atkinson, A. L., Oberauer, K., Allen, R. J., & Souza, A. S. (2022). Why does the probe value effect emerge in working memory? Examining the biased attentional refreshing account. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 29(3), 891-900.

[17]. 17.Jeanneret, S., Bartsch, L. M., & Vergauwe, E. (2023). To be or not to be relevant: Comparing short-and long-term consequences across working memory prioritization procedures. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 85(5), 1486-1498. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02706-4

[18]. 18.Allen, R. J., Atkinson, A. L., & Hitch, G. J. (2025). Getting value out of working memory through strategic prioritisation: Implications for storage and control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(2), 405-424. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1177/17470218241258102

[19]. 19.Barth, A., & Schneider, D. (2018). Manipulating the focus of attention in working memory: Evidence for a protection of multiple items against perceptual interference. Psychophysiology, 55(7), e13062.

[20]. 20.Lorenc, E. S., Mallett, R., & Lewis-Peacock, J. A. (2021). Distraction in visual working memory: Resistance is not futile. Trends in cognitive sciences, 25(3), 228-239. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.12.004

[21]. 21.Makovski, T., & Pertzov, Y. (2015). Attention and memory protection: Interactions between retrospective attention cueing and interference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(9), 1735-1743. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1049623

[22]. 22.Schneider, D., Barth, A., Getzmann, S., & Wascher, E. (2017). On the neural mechanisms underlying the protective function of retroactive cuing against perceptual interference: Evidence by event-related potentials of the EEG. Biological Psychology, 124, 47-56.

[23]. 23.Souza, A. S., Thalmann, M., & Oberauer, K. (2018). The precision of spatial selection into the focus of attention in working memory. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 25(6), 2281-2288.

[24]. 24.van Moorselaar, D., Gunseli, E., Theeuwes, J., & NL Olivers, C. (2015). The time course of protecting a visual memory representation from perceptual interference. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8, 1053.

[25]. 25.Cowan, N. (2011). The focus of attention as observed in visual working memory tasks: Making sense of competing claims. Neuropsychologia, 49(6), 1401-1406.

[26]. 26.McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. Psychology of learning and motivation, 46, 155-200.

[27]. 27.Oberauer, K. (2002). Access to information in working memory: exploring the focus of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 411-421. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.3.411

[28]. 28.Oberauer, K., & Lin, H.-Y. (2017). An interference model of visual working memory. Psychological review, 124(1), 21-59. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1037/rev0000044

[29]. 29.Pertzov, Y., Bays, P. M., Joseph, S., & Husain, M. (2013). Rapid forgetting prevented by retrospective attention cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(5), 1224-1231. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1037/a0030947

[30]. 30.Souza, A. S., & Oberauer, K. (2016). In search of the focus of attention in working memory: 13 years of the retro-cue effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(7), 1839-1860. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.3758/s13414016-1108-5

[31]. 31.Hu, Y., Allen, R. J., Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (2016). Executive control of stimulus-driven and goal-directed attention in visual working memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(7), 2164-2175. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1106-7

[32]. 32.Hu, Y., Hitch, G. J., Baddeley, A. D., Zhang, M., & Allen, R. J. (2014). Executive and perceptual attention play different roles in visual working memory: evidence from suffix and strategy effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1665-1678. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1037/a0037163

[33]. 33.Mallett, R., & Lewis-Peacock, J. A. (2019). Working memory prioritization impacts neural recovery from distraction. Cortex, 121, 225-238. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.08.019

[34]. 34.Hitch, G. J., Hu, Y., Allen, R. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2018). Competition for the focus of attention in visual working memory: perceptual recency versus executive control. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1424(1), 64-75. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13631

[35]. 35.Hautekiet, C., Niklaus, M., & Oberauer, K. (2025). Susceptibility to visual interference in working memory: Different results depending on the prioritization mode? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 51(6), 791–807. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001315

[36]. 36.36, Hautekiet, C., Langerock, N., & Vergauwe, E. (2024). Prioritization in visual working memory: An investigation of distractor susceptibility and different prioritization modes. PsyArXiv.

[37]. 37.Saito, J. M., Printzlau, F. A., Yeo, Y., & Fukuda, K. (2025). Working memory prioritization changes bidirectional interactions with visual inputs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1037/xge0001813

[38]. 38.Dugué, L., Merriam, E. P., Heeger, D. J., & Carrasco, M. (2020). Differential impact of endogenous and exogenous attention on activity in human visual cortex. Scientific reports, 10(1), 21274. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78172-x

[39]. 39.Han, S., Zhou, H., Tian, Y., & Ku, Y. (2023). Early top-down control of internal selection induced by retrospective cues in visual working memory: advantage of peripheral over central cues. Progress in Neurobiology, 230, 102521. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2023.102521

[40]. 40.Hauer, B. J., & MacLeod, C. M. (2006). Endogenous versus exogenous attentional cuing effects on memory. Acta psychologica, 122(3), 305-320.

[41]. 41.Nobre, A. C., & Gresch, D. (2025). How the brain shifts between external and internal attention. Neuron, 113(15), 2382-2398. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2025.06.013

[42]. 42.Barth, A., & Schneider, D. (2018). Manipulating the focus of attention in working memory: Evidence for a protection of multiple items against perceptual interference. Psychophysiology, 55(7), e13062.

[43]. 43.Makovski, T., & Jiang, Y. V. (2007). Distributing versus focusing attention in visual short-term memory. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 14(6), 1072-1078.

[44]. 44.Astle, D. E., Summerfield, J., Griffin, I., & Nobre, A. C. (2012). Orienting attention to locations in mental representations. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(1), 146-162.

[45]. 45.Gunseli, E., van Moorselaar, D., Meeter, M., & Olivers, C. N. (2015). The reliability of retro-cues determines the fate of noncued visual working memory representations. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 22(5), 1334-1341.

[46]. 46.Schneider, D., Mertes, C., & Wascher, E. (2016). The time course of visuo-spatial working memory updating revealed by a retro-cuing paradigm. Scientific reports, 6(1), 1-12.

[47]. 47.Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior research methods, 39(2), 175-191.

[48]. 48.Peirce, J., Hirst, R., & MacAskill, M. (2022). Building experiments in PsychoPy: Sage.

[49]. 49.Averbach, E., & Coriell, A. S. (1961). Short-term memory in vision. The Bell System Technical Journal, 40(1), 309-328.

[50]. 50.Rensink, R. A., O'regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological science, 8(5), 368-373.

[51]. 51.Souza, A. S. (2016). No age deficits in the ability to use attention to improve visual working memory. Psychology and Aging, 31(5), 456-470.

[52]. 52.Griffin, I. C., & Nobre, A. C. (2003). Orienting attention to locations in internal representations. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 15(8), 1176-1194.

[53]. 53.Landman, R., Spekreijse, H., & Lamme, V. A. (2003). Large capacity storage of integrated objects before change blindness. Vision Research, 43(2), 149-164.

[54]. 54.Camos, V., Mora, G., & Oberauer, K. (2011). Adaptive choice between articulatory rehearsal and attentional refreshing in verbal working memory. Memory & cognition, 39(2), 231-244.

[55]. 55.Raye, C. L., Johnson, M. K., Mitchell, K. J., Greene, E. J., & Johnson, M. R. (2007). Refreshing: A minimal executive function. Cortex, 43(1), 135-145.

[56]. 56.Vergauwe, E., Hautekiet, C., & Langerock, N. (2025). Distractor susceptibility in visual working memory: No evidence for particularly vulnerable mnemonic representations in the focus of attention.

[57]. 57.Hu, Y., Allen, R. J., Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (2023). Visual working memory phenomena based on categorical tasks replicate using a continuous measure: A simple interpretation and some methodological considerations. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 85(5), 1733-1745. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02656-x