# Identical Attentional Capture with Different Working Memory Representation Precision

## TL;DR

The study finds that attentional capture effects are not influenced by how working memory resources are allocated.

## Contribution

The study reveals that attentional capture effects are consistent regardless of working memory resource allocation.

## Key findings

- Attentional capture effects remain unchanged with different working memory representation precision.
- Memory precision is higher with fewer memory items or cued items, but this does not affect attentional capture.
- Attentional capture may stem from an attention bias during the preparation stage of memory-based guidance.

## Abstract

Attention can be automatically captured by the distractor that matches the representation of working memory (WM) in search tasks, impairing visual search efficiency and resulting in attentional capture effects. The resource hypothesis of visual search predicts that resource allocation affects attentional capture. However, previous studies have shown partly opposing results inconsistent with this prediction. The purpose of this study is to assess the connection between attentional capture and WM resource allocation. Two experiments were conducted to combine the attentional capture paradigm with continuous delayed-estimation tasks. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the number of memory items between one and two and measured the WM representation precision as well as the magnitude of attentional capture. In Experiment 2, we manipulated resource allocation using a retro-cue task with the presentation of two memory items. In Experiment 1, the results show that when remembering one item, a single-item representation had higher precision compared to the scenario for remembering two items, and it also involved a greater allocation of WM resources. However, there was no significant difference in the magnitude of attentional capture effects between the two conditions. In Experiment 2, the results show that memory precision was higher when the cue pointed to the item compared to when it did not, but there was no significant difference in the magnitude of attentional capture effects between the cued-match and non-cued-match conditions. The findings show that the size of attentional capture effects based on WM is unaffected by the distribution of WM resources. Attentional capture effects may reflect the attention bias of WM representation that occurs in preparation stage of memory-based attentional guidance.