SHORT REPORT/COMMUNICATION BRÈVES Maintaining Information in Visual Working Memory: Memory for Bindings and Memory for Features are Equally Disrupted by Increased Attentional Demands Evie Vergauwe University of Missouri Naomi Langerock and Pierre Barrouillet University of Geneva This study examined the role of attention in maintaining information between visual features in visual working memory. In a change detection paradigm, two different memory conditions were created: one that required the maintenance of features and one that required the maintenance of how the features were bound together. During the short retention interval that separated the study display and test display, a tone discrimination task was to be performed. The attentional demand of the tone discrimination task was manipulated to test whether memory for binding was more disrupted than memory for features when the proportion of time during which attention is unavailable for maintenance is increased. We observed that memory for features and memory for bindings were equally disrupted by increasing the attentional demands of the tone discrimination task. This suggests that attention does not play a special role in the maintenance of feature bindings in visual working memory. Keywords: visual working memory, attention, maintenance, binding, cognitive load Visual working memory (vWM) refers to the cognitive sys- tem that briefly holds a limited amount of visual information. In the literature, there is an ongoing debate concerning the basic unit of information in vWM. One view suggests that vWM stores integrated object representations (Luck & Vogel, 1997). Support for this idea was provided by studies using the change detection task. In this task, participants are presented with a study array and, after a brief delay, a test array is presented. Participants are required to detect whether a change has oc- curred between the two arrays. For example, in one task, participants were presented with colored bars in various orien- tations. In one condition, participants knew whether they should look for a change in color or a change in orientation and thus, only one feature per object was to be maintained (i.e., single- feature condition). In another condition, participants knew that the change could be either in color or orientation and thus, two features per object were to be maintained (i.e., multifeature condition). Performance was found to be similar across these conditions. Using objects that were defined by four different features per object resulted in the same basic finding; perfor- mance depended on the number of objects presented in the study array, rather than on the number of features that needed to be remembered (Luck & Vogel, 1997; Vogel, Woodman, & Luck, 2001). From this, it was concluded that the capacity of vWM is object-based rather than feature-based. Wheeler and Treisman (2002), however, argued that, in the multifeature conditions of Luck and Vogel (1997), participants were required to maintain multiple features per object but not the bindings between the features. If one assumes that features can be stored in parallel feature-specific stores, then multiple features of the same object can be stored in vWM with no additional cost, without assuming object-based storage. In a range of change detection experiments, Wheeler and Treisman (2002) compared a two-feature condition with a binding con- dition. In the two-feature condition, a change could occur in either of the features but participants did not know which feature dimension might undergo a change on a particular trial. Successful change detection required memory for both features but not for binding information. In the binding condition, a change could occur in the particular association between fea- tures. For example, when a red star and a yellow circle were shown in the study array, the test array on change trials would show a yellow star and a red circle. Successful performance in this condition required memory for binding information. Wheeler and Treisman (2002) observed a decline in the binding condition, relative to the two-feature condition. The authors suggested that focused attention is required to maintain binding information and that the decline in performance observed in the binding condition might be the result of the test array distract- ing attention so that it is no longer available for maintaining the bindings in vWM. Evie Vergauwe, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri; Naomi Langerock and Pierre Barrouillet, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Evie Ver- gauwe, 211 McAlester Hall, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail: vergauwee@ missouri.edu Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale © 2014 Canadian Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 68, No. 3, 158 –162 1196-1961/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cep0000025 158