Using a model of hypothesis generation to predict eye movements in a visual search task Daniel R. Buttaccio & Nicholas D. Lange & Rick P. Thomas & Michael R. Dougherty Published online: 18 September 2014 # Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014 Abstract We used a model of hypothesis generation (called HyGene; Thomas, Dougherty, Sprenger, & Harbison, 2008) to make predictions regarding the deployment of attention (as assessed via eye movements) afforded by the cued recall of target characteristics before the onset of a search array. On each trial, while being eyetracked, participants were first presented with a memory prompt that was diagnostic regard- ing the target’ s color in a subsequently presented search array. We assume that the memory prompts led to the generation of hypotheses (i.e., potential target characteristics) from long- term memory into working memory to guide attentional pro- cesses and ocular–motor behavior. However, given that mul- tiple hypotheses might be generated in response to a prompt, it has been unclear how the focal hypothesis (i.e., the hypothesis that exerts the most influence on search) affects search behav- ior. We tested two possibilities using first fixation data, with the assumption that the first item fixated within a search array was the focal hypothesis. We found that a model assuming that the first item generated into working memory guides overt attentional processes was most consistent with the data at both the aggregate and single-participant levels of analysis. Keywords Attention . Working memory . Memory . Hypothesis generation . Visual search In the present work, we examined the interactive relationship between information search and the processes involved with working memory (WM) and long-term memory (LTM) retriev- al. In recent years, much work in attention has focused on the finding that the contents of WM can influence visual search in predictable ways. For example, Soto and colleagues have shown that representations in WM can bias visual search toward objects in the environment that match or are related to representations held in WM, with other researchers finding similar results (e.g., Downing, 2000; Huang & Pashler, 2007b; Soto, Heinke, Humphreys, & Blanco, 2005; Soto & Humphreys, 2007; al- though see Woodman & Luck, 2007). This bias typically man- ifests in increased visual search reaction times (RTs) when an item to be maintained in WM is subsequently presented as a distractor in a search array, relative to when the WM item is not presented in the search array. However, our present work differs from this past work in two ways. First, since the prior work has examined top-down guided search using the match-to-sample or a similar paradigm (e.g., Olivers, 2009; Soto et al., 2005; Woodman & Luck, 2007), 1 this work has focused on tasks in which the participant was given a particular representation to hold in WM at the start of a trial. For example, Soto and colleagues have typically provid- ed a to-be-memorized colored shape (e.g., red circle), known 1 Much of this work has focused on the automaticity of attention to WM content. We are not making this claim, but are merely accepting the notion that there is an attentional bias toward WM’ s content, particularly when the goals of the search task are aligned with the WM content (i.e., valid trials; see Carlisle & Woodman, 2013, who found a much stronger n2pc when WM content was associated with the target in the visual search task). In the present work, it was often advantageous for participants to deploy attention to items in the environment that corresponded to the representations in WM that had been retrieved from LTM. D. R. Buttaccio : M. R. Dougherty University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA N. D. Lange Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK N. D. Lange University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma R. P. Thomas Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia D. R. Buttaccio (*) Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, Biology-Psychology Building, College Park, Maryland 20740, USA e-mail: dbuttacc@umd.edu Mem Cogn (2015) 43:247–265 DOI 10.3758/s13421-014-0463-5