Abstract:Although previous studies point to qualitative similarities between working memory (WM) and attention, the degree to which these two constructs rely on shared neural mechanisms remains unknown. Focusing on one such potentially shared mechanism, we tested the hypothesis that selecting an item within WM utilizes similar neural mechanisms as selecting a visible item via a shift of attention. We used fMRI and machine learning to decode both the selection among items visually available and the selection among items stored in WM in human subjects (both sexes). Patterns of activity in visual, parietal, and to a lesser extent frontal cortex predicted the locations of the selected items. Critically, these patterns were strikingly interchangeable; classifiers trained on data during attentional selection predicted selection from WM, and classifiers trained on data during selection from memory predicted attentional selection. Using models of voxel receptive fields, we visualized topographic population activity that revealed gain enhancements at the locations of the externally and internally selected items. Our results suggest that selecting among perceived items and selecting among items in WM share a common mechanism. This common mechanism, analogous to a shift of spatial attention, controls the relative gains of neural populations that encode behaviorally relevant information. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT How we allocate our attention to external stimuli that we see and to internal representations of stimuli stored in memory might rely on a common mechanism. Supporting this hypothesis, we demonstrated that not only could patterns of human brain activity predict which items were selected during perception and memory, but that these patterns were interchangeable during external and internal selection. Additionally, this generalized selection mechanism operates by changes in the gains of the neural populations both encoding attended sensory representations and storing relevant memory representations.

Early Auditory Evoked Potential Is Modulated by Selective Attention and Related to Individual Differences in Visual Working Memory Capacity

Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity Are Reflected in Different ERP and EEG Patterns to Task Difficulty

Working Memory Asymmetrically Modulates Auditory and Linguistic Processing of Speech.

Working Memory Capacity and Visual–Verbal Cognitive Load Modulate Auditory–Sensory Gating in the Brainstem: Toward a Unified View of Attention

Common Neural Mechanisms Control Attention and Working Memory

Overlapping neural representations for selection in attention and working memory

Attentional enhancement predicts individual differences in visual working memory under go/no-go search conditions

Visual selective attention is equally functional for individuals with low and high working memory capacity: Evidence from accuracy and eye movements

Susceptibility to Attentional Capture by Target-Matching Distractors Predicts High Visual Working Memory Capacity

The Electrophysiological Effect of Working Memory Load on Involuntary Attention in an Auditory–visual Distraction Paradigm: an ERP Study

A Study of Relationship between Visual WM Capacity and Controlled Attention

Working-memory capacity predicts the executive control of visual search among distractors: The influences of sustained and selective attention

A study on spatio-temporal patterns of ERP of individual differences of visual working memory capacity

Selective contributions of executive function ability to the P3

Individual Differences in Working Memory and the N2pc

Cross-Modal Selective Attention to Visual and Auditory Stimuli Modulates Endogenous Erp Components

Working Memory Biases Early Object Discrimination and Parietal Activity During Attentional Selection

Neural Evidence for the Contribution of Active Suppression During Working Memory Filtering

The Effect of Visuospatial Attentional Load on the Processing of Irrelevant Acoustic Distractors

Study of cognitive component of auditory attention to natural speech events

Individual differences in selective attention reveal the nonmonotonicity of visual spatial attention and its association with working memory capacity.