Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 795-806 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| Early online date | 19 Jul 2018 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 May 2019 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Perspective taking
- joint attention
- gaze cueing
- working memory
- attention orienting
- Gaze cuing
- Attention orienting
- Joint attention
- Working memory
- perspective taking
- UNIQUE
- OBJECTS
- gaze cuing
- EYE-GAZE
- CUES
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Language and Linguistics
- Linguistics and Language
Cite this
Barriers block the effect of joint attention on working memory : Perspective taking matters. / Gregory, Samantha E. A.; Jackson, Margaret C.
In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, Vol. 45, No. 5, 01.05.2019, p. 795-806.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Barriers block the effect of joint attention on working memory
T2 - Perspective taking matters
AU - Gregory, Samantha E. A.
AU - Jackson, Margaret C.
N1 - The authors would like to thank the following undergraduate students for their help with some of the data collection in Experiments 1 and 3 and for their insightful discussion on some of the results found: Claire Bell, Vojtech Bily, Liliana Candeias de Sousa, Catherine Georgeson, Ann Hendy, Hana Nasser, Oluwanifemi Oni, Vilma Pullinen, Sophie Schenk, Gwen Schwab, Janika Vikman, Emily Wilks, and Charles Wilson. We also thank Dr Patric Bach for his useful comments on an earlier draft.
PY - 2019/5/1
Y1 - 2019/5/1
N2 - Joint focus of attention between two individuals can influence the way that observers attend, encode and value items. Using a non-predictive gaze cuing task we previously found that working memory (WM) was better for jointly attended (validly cued) versus invalidly cued coloured squares. Here we examine whether this influence of gaze on WM is driven by observers sharing the perspective of the face cue (mental state account), or simply by increased attention to the cued location (social attention account). To manipulate perspective-taking, a closed barrier obstructed the cue face’s view of the memoranda, while an open barrier allowed the cue face to ‘see’ the colours. A central cue face flanked by two identical barriers looked left or right, followed 500ms later by coloured squares for encoding which appeared equally often in the validly and invalidly cued locations. After a blank 1000ms maintenance interval, participants stated whether a probe colour was present or not in the preceding display. When the barrier was open, WM was significantly impaired for invalidly versus validly cued items. When the barrier was closed, the effect of gaze cues on WM was abolished. In contrast, further experiments showed a significant cuing effect on the speed of simple target localisation and colour discrimination regardless of barrier type. These findings support the mental state account of joint attention in WM, whereby the attentional focus of another alters WM via higher-level engagement with the second person perspective. A goal-specific model of perspective taking is proposed.
AB - Joint focus of attention between two individuals can influence the way that observers attend, encode and value items. Using a non-predictive gaze cuing task we previously found that working memory (WM) was better for jointly attended (validly cued) versus invalidly cued coloured squares. Here we examine whether this influence of gaze on WM is driven by observers sharing the perspective of the face cue (mental state account), or simply by increased attention to the cued location (social attention account). To manipulate perspective-taking, a closed barrier obstructed the cue face’s view of the memoranda, while an open barrier allowed the cue face to ‘see’ the colours. A central cue face flanked by two identical barriers looked left or right, followed 500ms later by coloured squares for encoding which appeared equally often in the validly and invalidly cued locations. After a blank 1000ms maintenance interval, participants stated whether a probe colour was present or not in the preceding display. When the barrier was open, WM was significantly impaired for invalidly versus validly cued items. When the barrier was closed, the effect of gaze cues on WM was abolished. In contrast, further experiments showed a significant cuing effect on the speed of simple target localisation and colour discrimination regardless of barrier type. These findings support the mental state account of joint attention in WM, whereby the attentional focus of another alters WM via higher-level engagement with the second person perspective. A goal-specific model of perspective taking is proposed.
KW - Perspective taking
KW - joint attention
KW - gaze cueing
KW - working memory
KW - attention orienting
KW - Gaze cuing
KW - Attention orienting
KW - Joint attention
KW - Working memory
KW - perspective taking
KW - UNIQUE
KW - OBJECTS
KW - gaze cuing
KW - EYE-GAZE
KW - CUES
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050124315&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/barriers-block-effect-joint-attention-working-memory-perspective-taking-matters
U2 - 10.1037/xlm0000622
DO - 10.1037/xlm0000622
M3 - Article
VL - 45
SP - 795
EP - 806
JO - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition
JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition
SN - 0278-7393
IS - 5
ER -