33%_retro-cue

This experiment is part of a study including four experiments (100%_retrocue, 3-1-1_reward, 33%_retrocue, and 100-1-1_reward) in which we want to investigate whether information in the focus of attention is protected from or particularly vulnerable to perceptual interference. One of the most prominent differences between studies finding a protective or vulnerable state is the fact that the studies finding a protective state typically used a retro-cue (e.g., van Moorselaar et al., 2015), whereas studies finding a particularly vulnerable state typically used a reward pattern to prioritize information in working memory (e.g., Allen & Ueno, 2018). One possibility is that the difference in a protective versus vulnerable state arises from the difference in how information is brought into the focus of attention (Prioritization mode: cued vs. rewarded). Alternatively, the difference in a protective versus vulnerable state might arise from a difference in (objective or subjective) task relevance of the prioritized information across the conditions in question. In the current retro-cue paradigm, we will lower the task relevance by reducing the cue validity from 100% to 33%. If the susceptibility of an item in the focus of attention depends on the prioritization mode, then we expect to see a protective state in the current experiment, even though the difference in task relevance between the high-priority item and equal-priority items was reduced compared to 100% validity. If the susceptibility of an item in the focus of attention depends on the task relevance, then we expect to see a vulnerable state in the current experiment, because the difference in task relevance between the high-priority item and equal-priority items was reduced compared to 100% validity. There are three Priority states in this experiment: high priority, low priority, and equal priority. The data for both the high-priority and the low-priority condition come from trials with a priority signal. That is, data for the high-priority condition comes from trials in which the high-priority item was tested while data for the low-priority condition comes from trials in which one of the low-priority items was tested. Data for the equal-priority condition comes from trials without a priority signal.