Figure 1. A: Examples of the memory configurations in
the grouped, partially grouped, and ungrouped conditions and for the
placeholder configuration presented on the unattended display side. Note
that each memory configuration presented exactly six different colors
and orientations, such that the overall physical stimulation was
identical in all three memory configurations. Moreover, the physical
stimulation of the placeholder was in critical respects (including the
size and positions) comparable to the memory configurations, without
however providing relevant color and orientation information. B: Example
trial sequence, depicting a memory array that presents a grouped
configuration on the right side of the display (as indicated by the
preceding arrow cue) and a to-be-ignored placeholder configuration of
six gray circles on the left side. Following a retention interval, the
test display is presented, which would reveal a probe item on the cued
side (and a placeholder circle on the uncued side). The probe would
either depict a color change (left), an orientation change (middle), or
no change (right).
Trials were presented in randomized order such that all conditions, that
is, the possible configurations (grouped, partially grouped, and
ungrouped) and change types (no change, color, or orientation change),
were presented randomly intermixed across trials. This ensured that
observers were required to memorize both the color and orientation
features in the memory displays. All participants performed 9 practice
blocks of 64 trials each on the day before the experiment, to become
familiar with the (rather demanding) task. The experiment itself then
consisted of 18 blocks of 64 trials each, amounting to 1152 experimental
trials. After each block, participants had the opportunity to take a
short break.
EEG recording. The EEG data was continuously recorded and
digitized at 1000 Hz using a 64 channel Ag/AgCl active electrode system
connected to a polyester elastic head-cap (EasyCap64, Brain Products,
Munich, Germany). The electrodes were positioned in accordance with the
international 10-10 system. The horizontal electrooculogram (EOG) was
recorded from electrodes placed at the outer canthi of the eyes (F9 and
F10). The vertical EOG was recorded from an electrode beneath the left
eye (VEOG; positioned at the same distance from the center of the eye as
the Fp1 electrode), in order to detect blinks and vertical eye
movements. The electrode signals were amplified using a wireless
amplifier system (BrainAmp, Brain Products, Munich, Germany) with a 0.1-
to 250-Hz bandpass filter. During data acquisition, all electrodes were
referenced to FCz and re-referenced offline to averaged mastoids. All
electrode impedances were kept below 5 kΩ.
Artifact Rejection. Offline signal processing was performed using
the Brain Vision Analyzer software (BrainProducts, Munich, Germany). The
raw data were inspected visually to manually remove nonstereotypical
noise and they were then high-pass filtered using a Butterworth infinite
impulse response filter at 0.5 Hz (24 dB per octave). Next, an infomax
independent component analysis was carried out to identify components
representing blinks and/or horizontal eye movements and to remove these
artifacts before back-projection of the residual components (1% of all
trials were removed because of eye-movement artifacts). Prestimulus
baseline correction (−1000 ms to −800 ms before VWM array onset) was
performed on the raw voltages. ERPs were calculated time-locked to the
onset of the memory display, with segments extending from 200 ms before
stimulus onset until 1300 ms afterwards. Only trials without artifacts
[defined as any signal exceeding ± 60 μV, bursts of electromyographic
activity (the maximum voltage step allowed per sampling point was 50 μV)
and activity lower than 0.5 μV within intervals of 500 ms (indicating
dead channels)] were considered for further analysis on an
individual-channel basis before the ERP waveforms were averaged.
ERP data analysis. We included 6 parieto-occipital electrodes
chosen a-priori and based on previous findings (e.g., Adam et al., 2018;
Fukuda et al., 2015): PO3, PO4, PO7, PO8, O1, and O2. Specifically, we
subtracted ERPs from parieto-occipital electrodes ipsilateral to the
memory array’s location from contralateral ERPs. Based on predictions
drawn from previous work
(Wiegand et al. 2015;
Diaz et al. 2021), we examined for an attentional modulation of
modality-specific sensory responses in the visual PPC, N1pc, N2pc, and
CDA components (130–160 ms, 160–200 ms, 260–330 ms, and 350–1300 ms
post memory display, respectively; in these time-windows, the respective
components were clearly present in all conditions) at lateral
parieto-occipital sites.
Oscillatory Amplitude Analysis . To gain an overall picture of the
frequency components, the pre-processed EEG time series data from each
separate channel were Morlet-wavelet filtered into 31 frequency bands,
fmin=3 Hz to fmax=120 Hz with the Morlet time–frequency compromise
parameter m, being m = 5. For the time window between -200 and 1300 ms
following stimulus onset, we extracted instantaneous amplitude values
for the alpha band (8–12 Hz) and calculated the alpha amplitude for the
same parieto-occipital electrodes as in the ERP analysis (PO3, PO4, PO7,
PO8, O1, and O2). We calculated the mean amplitude over contralateral
and ipsilateral posterior channels (PO3, PO4, PO7, PO8, O1, and O2) in
the same way as for the ERP analysis (i.e., relative to the memory
array). To compute the lateralization magnitude, we took the difference
between the contralateral and ipsilateral alpha amplitude averaged over
the specified time window (350–1300 ms) comparable to the procedure as
described for the CDA.
Results
Behavioral data. To determine whether there were
differences in accuracy across the different experimental conditions, we
performed a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the
factors Object Configuration (grouped, partially grouped, ungrouped) and
Change Type (color, orientation). Greenhouse-Geisser-corrected values
are reported when Mauchley’s test of sphericity was significant
(p < .05). We additionally report Bayes factors
(BF10 ) for non-significant results to evaluate
the evidence for the null hypothesis (see Jeffreys, 1961; Kass &
Raftery, 1995). The Bayes factor provides the ratio with which the
alternative hypothesis is favored over the null hypothesis (values below
1/3 may be taken to support the null hypothesis, whereas values greater
than 3 would provide evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis;
see Jeffreys, 1961; Kass & Raftery, 1995). As we had a-priori
hypotheses about the direction of effects (we predicted grouping to lead
to increased memory performance), one-tailed paired samples t-tests
(along with one-tailed Bayesian paired samples t-tests) were used for
comparisons between the various object configurations.
Figure 2A presents the percentage of correct responses as a
function of object configuration, separately for color and orientation
changes. The Object-Configuration by Change-Type repeated-measures ANOVA
yielded significant main effects of Object Configuration, F (2,
46) = 70.97, p < .001,ηp2 = .76, and Change Type,F (1, 23) = 4.63, p = .04,ηp2 = .17. There was a graded
effect of Object Configuration, with the highest accuracy for grouped
configurations (73%), followed by partially grouped (66%) and
ungrouped (63%) configurations (all p ’s < .001,d zs > 0.88 for the pairwise
comparisons between configurations). In addition, accuracy was higher
for color changes than for orientation changes (68% vs. 66%). Finally,
the Object-Configuration × Change-Type interaction was significant,F (2, 46) = 30.47, p < .001,ηp2 = .57: the enhancement of
performance with increasing grouping strength was several times larger
for orientation changes (grouped vs. ungrouped: 16%, p< .001, d z = 2.11; grouped vs.
partially grouped: 12%, p < .001,d z = 1.70; partially grouped vs. ungrouped: 5%,p < .001, d z = 0.82) than for
color changes (grouped vs. ungrouped: 4%, p < .001,d z = 0.87; grouped vs. partially grouped: 2%,p = .013, d z = 0.48; partially grouped vs.
ungrouped: 2%, p = .038, d z = 0.38). It
should be noted, however, that both types of change benefited
significantly (albeit to a differential degree) from the increase in
grouping strength. Overall, the mean performance was around 67%, while
decreasing in some conditions to ~60% (e.g., in the
orientation change condition with ungrouped configurations).
Importantly, though, the mean accuracies were significantly above chance
level in all conditions, t s(24)> 11.61, p s
< .001, d s> 2.37.