Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 18, 2026

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments
Published on: January 23, 2017
Applying an attentional set to perceived and remembered features
Duncan Edward Astle1, Anna Christina Nobre, Gaia Scerif
1Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. Duncan.astle@psy.ox.ac.uk
Switching attentional set retrospectively incurs a performance cost, reflected in brain activity. Anticipatory and retrospective attention control involve distinct neural mechanisms, differing in topography and amplitude.
Area of Science:
- Cognitive Neuroscience
- Neuroscience of Attention
- Visual Short-Term Memory Research
Background:
- Prior studies explored selective attention and feature switching, often in anticipatory attentional-set control.
- Research compared neural mechanisms for task-stay versus task-switch trials in prospective attention.
- The neural basis of retrospective attentional-set control within visual short-term memory remained less understood.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate how individuals maintain or switch attentional set retrospectively while processing visual short-term memory (VSTM) content.
- To compare the neural correlates of retrospective attentional switching with anticipatory attentional control.
- To elucidate the distinct neural generators involved in retrospective versus anticipatory attentional set control.
Main Methods:
- Event-related potentials (ERPs) and global field power (GFP) were analyzed to compare neural activity during task-stay and task-switch trials.
- Participants attended to features of objects held in visual short-term memory (VSTM).
- Analyses examined both amplitude and topographical differences in brain activity between conditions.
Main Results:
- Retrospective attentional set switching, compared to maintaining the set, resulted in a performance cost, which diminished over time.
- Significant differences in ERP amplitude and GFP were observed between switch and stay trials, primarily in parietal and frontal regions.
- While switch/stay differences were mainly quantitative (amplitude), anticipatory and retrospective control showed qualitative differences in neural topography.
Conclusions:
- Retrospective attentional set control recruits distinct neural configurations compared to anticipatory control, evidenced by topographical brain activity differences.
- Switching attentional set retrospectively leads to performance costs, modulated by neural amplitude differences.
- The findings suggest that anticipatory and retrospective attention control rely on qualitatively different neural mechanisms.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Factors Affecting Perception
An illustrative example of a perceptual set is the scenario where an airline pilot told...
Perception
Bottom-up processing begins at the sensory level, where receptors detect external environmental stimuli. These could include the tactile sensation of...
Impact of Schemas
First Impression
Implicit Memories
One key aspect of implicit...
Chunking and Rehearsal in Sensory Memory

