henhaobio
Sign in

Journal of Cognitive NeuroscienceNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article

Neural signatures of competition between voluntary and involuntary influences over the focus of attention in visual working memory

Yun DingiD, Bradley R. PostleiD, Freek van EdeiD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

Adaptive behaviour relies on the selection and prioritisation of relevant sensory inputs from the external environment as well as from among internal sensory representations held in working memory. Recent behavioural evidence suggests that the classic distinction between voluntary (goal-driven) and involuntary (stimulus-driven) influences over attentional allocation also applies to the selection of internal representations held in working memory. In the current EEG study, we set out to investigate the neural dynamics associated with the competition between voluntary and involuntary control over the focus of attention in visual working memory. We show that when voluntary and involuntary factors compete for the internal focus of attention, prioritisation of the appropriate item is delayed - as reflected both in delayed gaze biases that track internal selection and in delayed neural beta (15-25 Hz) dynamics that track the planning for the upcoming memory-guided manual action. We further show how this competition is paralleled - possibly resolved - by an increase in frontal midline theta (4-8 Hz) activity that, moreover, predicts the speed of ensuing memory-guided behaviour. Finally, because theta increased following retrocues that effectively reduced working-memory load, our data unveil how frontal theta activity during internal attentional focusing tracks demands on cognitive control over and above working-memory load. Together, these data yield new insight into the neural dynamics that govern the focus of attention in visual working memory, and disentangles the contributions of frontal midline theta activity to the processes of control versus retention in working memory.

Citations
10
FWCI
2.42
Field percentile
top 12%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISGong '26Hakim '19Teng '25Fuentes-Gue '26Zhang '23Chota '22
80% semantic matchNeuroscience