Effects Of Spatial And Object Working Memory On Return Inhibition In Athletes With Different Types Of Attentional Dominance

Return inhibition is a mechanism that people create to improve the efficiency of visual search.During visual search,people produce a response lag to objects or locations that they have once attended to.In recent years,scholars have conducted a lot of research on the return inhibition effect and the specificity of working memory,competing stages,and the relationship between return inhibition and different populations,but have not come up with a unified answer.The present study builds on previous work by varying the content of working memory materials to investigate the effects of three working memory on the return inhibition effect produced by an attentional awareness task and its differences in athletes from different attention-dominant programs.Study 1 investigated the effects of three working memory tasks presented in front of a cue on return inhibition.Mixed experimental design,3(working memory types: spatially restricted object working memory,spatial working memory spatially restricted object working memory)×(whether to remember: remember,not remember)×(cue validity: cue valid,cue invalid)×(population subgroups: general college students,environment-dominant attentional athletes,subject-dominant attentional athletes).Population grouping was the between-group independent variable,all other factors is the independent variable within the group and the dependent variable is the response time amount of return inhibition for the perception task.Study 2 presented the working memory task after the exogenous cue based on Study 1 to explore whether spatial and object working memory presentation after the exogenous cue had an effect on the return inhibition effect.In summary,the findings of this study are as follows:(1)There was no significant difference in the overall effect of the three different tasks on the return inhibition effect,and working memory tasks of different memory difficulty in the present study did not affect the return inhibition effect.(2)Regardless of whether the working memory task appeared before or after the exogenous cue,subjects in the memory condition had longer response times to the target than in the nonmemory condition.(3)Loadings on the working memory task during the encoding phase of the exogenous cue in the cue-target paradigm reduced the amount of return inhibition,and athletes in the ambient attention-dominant program in that condition responded faster to the attentional perception task in the working memory task loading condition than subject-dominant attentional athletes and general college students,indicating that ambient attention-dominant athletes have a good visual perception system.(4)No return inhibition was observed in the working memory operations of spatial object binding in the load of the retention phase of exogenous cues in the cue-target paradigm,and the environment-dominant project athletes in this condition responded significantly faster to the attentional perception task under the condition of spatial working memory load than the subject-dominant attentional athletes and the general population.This suggests that environmentally dominant athletes are better at allocating resources to the attentional perception task when performing dual tasks on spatial working memory.It indicates that long-term training has led to better cognitive strategies for spatial working memory in athletes with environmentally dominant attentional programs.(5)The ability to return to inhibition did not differ significantly across populations.