Attention Control and Working Memory, Varying Definitions and Measurements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review tackles the question of attention and working memory. The authors attempt to disentangle the relationship between working memory versus working memory and attention control. They propose a model where working memory and attention control exert their influence separately in selecting information and retaining it in memory, respectively. These two are considered independent components of working memory. 
Several improvements can be made to make it more appealing and useful to readers within and outside the field. The writing can greatly benefit by reducing redundancies and providing mechanistic depth instead. 

It will be good to have some clarity on the difference between “attention” vs. ”attention control”. In other words, is attention automatically directed to a stimulus that has salience for any of several reasons and the control to retain attention is exerted as a secondary step? Or, does the presence of salience alone exert the attentional control for as long as the salience persists. If so what makes a sensory event salient?

The quality of figure 5 should be improved, and the figure should be enlarged as it has a number of details. The figure legend, for this figure should also be more detailed so readers don't have to search for a different publication to find its explanation.

The Neuroscience and Computational modeling section is perhaps the most interesting, but unfortunately, it is not well structured and only superficially tackles the question of explaining cognition at a neural level. This section should be divided into two or more subsections. For example, computational aspects and models proposed by others can be separated from the known or proposed neural mechanisms and related circuitry. Another possibility is to connect each component of the proposed working memory model and explain its underlying neural mechanisms and brain structures associated with related functionality. In this context, what is the role of the brainstem and top-down versus bottom-up processing of information? There is some mention of oscillations, but this needs to be expanded and clarified. For example, both attention and working memory control cannot be exercised indefinitely. They are both subject to fatigue and likely occur as a rhythm from a survival perspective. In other words, in the natural world, shifting attention is as important as sustaining attention and occurs spontaneously. This realization is sometimes lost when focusing on a purely human-centric perspective of attentional and working memory control. If the authors can tackle this part of the review more comprehensively and with clarity, it can greatly enhance the usefulness and significance of this review.

In short, effort should be made to clearly connect the proposed neural mechanisms with the attention and working memory control aspects of the proposed model. This has been done to some extent, but can be greatly improved.

The Conclusion section is extremely long with redundant text and should be less than half of the current length. It can be split into two sections: a Summary and Conclusion section and a Future Directions section.

Author Response

Comments 1: “It will be good to have some clarity on the difference between “attention” vs. ”attention control”. In other words, is attention automatically directed to a stimulus that has salience for any of several reasons and the control to retain attention is exerted as a secondary step? Or, does the presence of salience alone exert the attentional control for as long as the salience persists. If so, what makes a sensory event salient?”
Response 1: Thank you for pointing out this issue for intelligibility, we have added the following details to the section “What is Attention Control” to help establish the construct more firmly in the reader’s understanding; “Firstly we should understand if we are discussing attention or attention control, sometimes referred to as cognitive control. Many authors refer to attention as having both a storage component, and control of what is stored in that storage component (Cowan & Fristoe, 2006). Attention control or cognitive control refers to the ability to control one’s attention, particularly in the face of task-irrelevant but distracting stimuli. For example, in an anti-saccade task, a distracting asterisk is flashed on the opposite side of the screen from the stimulus that the participant must see in order to complete the task. If the participant allows their attention to be automatically directed to the flashing stimuli, they will miss the task-relevant stimuli unless they deliberately control their attention to keep it from wandering.”

Comments 2: “The quality of figure 5 should be improved, and the figure should be enlarged as it has a number of details. The figure legend for this figure should also be more detailed so readers don't have to search for a different publication to find its explanation.”
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this readability issue out, we have increased the size of figure 5 and added the following description “This figure depicts Oberauer’s Model of Working Model (Oberauer, 2013, p.159). The green dots indicate elements in long term memory, with activated elements being drawn into the bridge and region of direct access depicted as blue circles. These activated elements are then loaded into the focus of attention and response focus so that the action in the bridge can be performed on the item from the region of direct access. “ which summarizes the description given in the paper to aid understanding.

Comments 3: “The Neuroscience and Computational modeling section is perhaps the most interesting, but unfortunately, it is not well structured and only superficially tackles the question of explaining cognition at a neural level. This section should be divided into two or more subsections. For example, computational aspects and models proposed by others can be separated from the known or proposed neural mechanisms and related circuitry. Another possibility is to connect each component of the proposed working memory model and explain its underlying neural mechanisms and brain structures associated with related functionality. In this context, what is the role of the brainstem and top-down versus bottom-up processing of information? There is some mention of oscillations, but this needs to be expanded and clarified. For example, both attention and working memory control cannot be exercised indefinitely. They are both subject to fatigue and likely occur as a rhythm from a survival perspective. In other words, in the natural world, shifting attention is as important as sustaining attention and occurs spontaneously. This realization is sometimes lost when focusing on a purely human-centric perspective of attentional and working memory control. If the authors can tackle this part of the review more comprehensively and with clarity, it can greatly enhance the usefulness and significance of this review.”
Response 3: Thank you for this detailed breakdown and questioning of that section of the paper. We have rewritten much of this section and split it into two separate sections “Neuropsychological Mechanisms Linking Attention Control and Working Memory” and “Computational Models of Attention Control and Working Memory Integration” in order to best address your questions and concerns.

 

Comments 4: “The Conclusion section is extremely long with redundant text and should be less than half of the current length. It can be split into two sections: a Summary and Conclusion section and a Future Directions section.”
Response 4: Thank you for this suggestion, we have removed much of the redundant text from the section, including the entire first paragraph and several portions of the later paragraphs and now reads as follows;
7. Conclusions and Future Directions
    “The review presented here emphasizes that the constructs of attention control, WMC, and working memory more broadly are deeply intertwined, both conceptually and mechanistically. Building upon the behavioral and psychometric foundations of previous research, contemporary neuroscientific and computational findings converge on a shared principle: cognitive control arises from the dynamic regulation of limited representational resources within a distributed neural network. In this light, attention control can be viewed as the mechanism by which the brain flexibly allocates and protects these resources, while working memory reflects the temporary representational state that results from such regulation.
This integrated view has several important implications. First, it supports the hierarchical model advanced in the current manuscript while recognizing that the hierarchy is functionally reciprocal. Attention control directs how memory resources are allocated, while the information held in working memory, in turn, influences control settings and guides what is perceived. This interplay aligns with findings from neuroimaging and electrophysiology that demonstrate bidirectional communication between prefrontal and posterior cortical areas. Second, it encourages a rethinking of measurement practices. Many classic behavioral tasks conflate control and capacity demands; for example, complex span tasks involve storage, processing, and inhibition. Combining these behavioral paradigms with neurophysiological measures—such as oscillatory coherence, event-related potentials, or neuromodulatory signatures—could help disentangle the relative contributions of each component to performance.
Future research should also focus on multilevel modeling approaches that can capture how individual differences in attention control and working memory emerge from common neural substrates. Latent variable techniques can be combined with connectome-based predictive modeling to examine how structural and functional connectivity constrain cognitive capacity. Similarly, computational models that integrate reinforcement learning and neural network dynamics can be used to simulate how control policies evolve with experience, providing a bridge between cognitive theory and neurobiology.
Applied domains stand to benefit from this integrative framework as well. In educational and occupational settings, interventions designed to improve working memory often yield inconsistent results. A more mechanistic understanding of attention control’s role in regulating working memory resources could inform more targeted approaches—for instance, training programs that focus on enhancing proactive control or reducing susceptibility to interference. Moreover, understanding how neuromodulatory states (e.g., arousal, fatigue, stress) alter control dynamics offers a pathway to contextualize variability in performance across individuals and tasks.     
As the field advances, progress will depend on integrative methodologies that move beyond descriptive correlations to causal and mechanistic explanations. Testing the hierarchical model at behavioral, neural, and computational levels will not only clarify the architecture of cognitive control but also strengthen our understanding of how human cognition achieves its remarkable flexibility and focus in a world of competing demands.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Attention Control and Working Memory: Variations in Definitions and Measurement" aims to provide a conceptual framework for understanding attention control and working memory, as well as to examine the relationship between these cognitive constructs. The authors' primary objective was to compare the definitions and measurements of each, emphasizing the complexities and nuances that characterize these concepts.

A central challenge highlighted in the paper is the difficulty of defining both attention and attention control. What is attention? What is attention control? The definitions of these terms are often unclear, and I suggest that the authors provide more guidance to support understanding. The authors acknowledge that the meanings of these concepts are continuously evolving, which has led to a range of interpretations regarding the mechanisms underlying attention and its control. They also note that this lack of consensus complicates the measurement and comparison of these constructs. This issue is significant, as clear definitions are necessary for developing reliable measures and establishing a unified theoretical framework.

Section 2.3, "Measures of Attention Control," discusses attention control is quantitatively measured. However, the rationale for including this section is not fully explained. It is unclear how these quantitative measures fit within the broader framework of the review, especially given the varying definitions of attention control. Could the purpose and significance of this section be clarified?

Citations of textbooks, such as "Cognition" by Thomas Farmer and Margaret Matlin (432 pages in total), seem to be vague. The book "Cognition" offers a comprehensive overview of basic principles in cognitive psychology. Specifically, Chapters 3, "Attention and Consciousness," and 4, "Working Memory," are particularly relevant.

Please clarify how the psychophysiological and computational approaches presented in Section 5 "Neuroscience and Computational Modeling" relate to the current topic (attention control and working memory). 

Nearly all the keywords in the list are already included in the paper’s title (Working Memory, Attention Control, Memory, Cognition, and Attention). This redundancy is unnecessary and should be addressed. Additionally, the keyword Model is too broad and should be specified to more accurately reflect the particular aspects of attention control and working memory discussed in the paper.

Please note that the affiliations section should provide complete address information, including the city, zip code, state/province, and country for each author. This standard format ensures clarity and allows for accurate attribution of the research.

Overall,  this paper is a valuable attempt to address the complexities of attention control and working memory. However, the paper could benefit from more precise definitions, clearer explanations of measurement methods, and a stronger connection between different sections. 

Minor
Line 221-222 - error citation
Line 752 - error citation
Line 757-758 - error citation
For Figures 2, 3, and 4, please provide explanations for all abbreviations used in the plots. Additionally, include references to relevant literature for the following concepts: Shipstead’s model (Figure 2), the hierarchical model of working memory (Figure 3), and Cowan’s model (Figure 4).
Lines 326–327: The abbreviation LTM for long-term memory is redundant.

Author Response

Comments 1: “A central challenge highlighted in the paper is the difficulty of defining both attention and attention control. What is attention? What is attention control? The definitions of these terms are often unclear, and I suggest that the authors provide more guidance to support understanding. The authors acknowledge that the meanings of these concepts are continuously evolving, which has led to a range of interpretations regarding the mechanisms underlying attention and its control. They also note that this lack of consensus complicates the measurement and comparison of these constructs. This issue is significant, as clear definitions are necessary for developing reliable measures and establishing a unified theoretical framework.”

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out this issue for intelligibility, we have added the following details to the section “What is Attention Control” to help establish the construct more firmly in the reader’s understanding; “Firstly we should understand if we are discussing attention or attention control, sometimes referred to as cognitive control. Many authors refer to attention as having both a storage component, and control of what is stored in that storage component (Cowan & Fristoe, 2006). Attention control or cognitive control refers to the ability to control one’s attention, particularly in the face of task-irrelevant but distracting stimuli. For example, in an anti-saccade task, a distracting asterisk is flashed on the opposite side of the screen from the stimulus that the participant must see in order to complete the task. If the participant allows their attention to be automatically directed to the flashing stimuli, they will miss the task-relevant stimuli unless they deliberately control their attention to keep it from wandering.”

Comments 2: “Section 2.3, "Measures of Attention Control," discusses how attention control is quantitatively measured. However, the rationale for including this section is not fully explained. It is unclear how these quantitative measures fit within the broader framework of the review, especially given the varying definitions of attention control. Could the purpose and significance of this section be clarified?”

Response 2: Thank you for indicating this shortcoming, we have added the following to the end of the previous section and beginning of section 2.3 to illustrate the importance of the section and tie into the later sections of the paper. “With the various and continually changing definitions of attention control and its proximity to working memory and WMC it can be illustrative to examine how it is measured and how those measurements contrast with WMC and working memory measurements. Several tasks have emerged that look to measure attention control as a separable construct. Some of these include the anti-saccade, visual array, Stroop, and flanker tasks.”

Comments 3: “Citations of textbooks, such as "Cognition" by Thomas Farmer and Margaret Matlin (432 pages in total), seem to be vague. The book "Cognition" offers a comprehensive overview of basic principles in cognitive psychology. Specifically, Chapters 3, "Attention and Consciousness," and 4, "Working Memory," are particularly relevant.”

Response 3: This is a good point, we have reviewed the paper as a whole and found the primary sources for all the material from the textbook that we used in the final version and appropriately assigned attribution. Thus we have now removed the text from our citations.

Comments 4: “Please clarify how the psychophysiological and computational approaches presented in Section 5 "Neuroscience and Computational Modeling" relate to the current topic (attention control and working memory).”

Response 4: Thank you for highlighting this issue of intelligibility and integration, we have reworked that entire section to be more easily integrated into the work as a whole and how they connect to the disentanglement of these highly interrelated constructs.

Comments 5: “Nearly all the keywords in the list are already included in the paper’s title (Working Memory, Attention Control, Memory, Cognition, and Attention). This redundancy is unnecessary and should be addressed. Additionally, the keyword Model is too broad and should be specified to more accurately reflect the particular aspects of attention control and working memory discussed in the paper.”

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out this accidental duplication, we have altered the model tag to “Computational Model” to refer to the “Computational Models of Attention Control and Working Memory Integration” section of the paper. Additionally we have added the “Neuropsychological Mechanisms” tag to reflect the “Neuropsychological Mechanisms Linking Attention Control and Working Memory” section of the paper, replacing the redundant tags.

Comments 6: “Please note that the affiliations section should provide complete address information, including the city, zip code, state/province, and country for each author. This standard format ensures clarity and allows for accurate attribution of the research.”

Response 6: This appears to have been a formatting issue and has been corrected, thank you for informing us of the issue.

Comments 7: “Minor

Line 221-222 - error citation

Line 752 - error citation

Line 757-758 - error citation

For Figures 2, 3, and 4, please provide explanations for all abbreviations used in the plots. Additionally, include references to relevant literature for the following concepts: Shipstead’s model (Figure 2), the hierarchical model of working memory (Figure 3), and Cowan’s model (Figure 4).

Lines 326–327: The abbreviation LTM for long-term memory is redundant.”

Response 7: Thank you for catching these errors, we have now corrected them.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review is now much improved. 
To improve readability, “Span tasks” should be abbreviated as ST given its frequent use. 

Author Response

Comments 1: “The review is now much improved. 

To improve readability, “Span tasks” should be abbreviated as ST given its frequent use.”

Response 1: Thank you for your helpful feedback, we have abbreviated Span tasks as mentioned, and together with the previous feedback we agree that the review has been improved significantly. We greatly appreciate your insightful input and time.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have refined their paper and addressed some weaknesses; however, certain issues remain unaddressed.

-- “Citations of textbooks, such as "Cognition" by Thomas Farmer and Margaret Matlin (432 pages in total), seem to be vague. The book "Cognition" offers a comprehensive overview of basic principles in cognitive psychology. Specifically, Chapters 3, "Attention and Consciousness," and 4, "Working Memory," are particularly relevant.”

-- Response: This is a good point, we have reviewed the paper as a whole and found the primary sources for all the material from the textbook that we used in the final version and appropriately assigned attribution. Thus we have now removed the text from our citations.

This issue has not been resolved. The citation of Farmer and Matlin (Cognition, 2019) appears multiple times in the text, yet it has been removed from the reference list. It is a good idea to cite primary sources.

 

-- “Please note that the affiliations section should provide complete address information, including the city, zip code, state/province, and country for each author. This standard format ensures clarity and allows for accurate attribution of the research.”

--Response: This appears to have been a formatting issue and has been corrected, thank you for informing us of the issue.

This issue has not been resolved.

 

-- For Figures 2, 3, and 4 ... please include references to relevant literature for the following concepts: Shipstead’s model (Figure 2), the hierarchical model of working memory (Figure 3), and Cowan’s model (Figure 4).

This issue has not been resolved. Please explain why it is not possible.

Author Response

Comments 1: “The authors have refined their paper and addressed some weaknesses; however, certain issues remain unaddressed.

-- “Citations of textbooks, such as "Cognition" by Thomas Farmer and Margaret Matlin (432 pages in total), seem to be vague. The book "Cognition" offers a comprehensive overview of basic principles in cognitive psychology. Specifically, Chapters 3, "Attention and Consciousness," and 4, "Working Memory," are particularly relevant.”

-- Response: This is a good point, we have reviewed the paper as a whole and found the primary sources for all the material from the textbook that we used in the final version and appropriately assigned attribution. Thus we have now removed the text from our citations.

This issue has not been resolved. The citation of Farmer and Matlin (Cognition, 2019) appears multiple times in the text, yet it has been removed from the reference list. It is a good idea to cite primary sources.”

Response 1: Thank you for catching this error, it appears that we missed several citations when re-checking the manuscript. All citations of Matlin and Farmer 2019 should be removed properly now.

Comments 2: “-- “Please note that the affiliations section should provide complete address information, including the city, zip code, state/province, and country for each author. This standard format ensures clarity and allows for accurate attribution of the research.”

--Response: This appears to have been a formatting issue and has been corrected, thank you for informing us of the issue.

This issue has not been resolved.“

Response 2: We apologize for failing to resolve this issue, we had edited the information on the submission site itself but the portion on the manuscript itself had not been changed. We have now added the city, state, country, and zip code of the institution where both authors are located to the paper as well.

Comments 3: “-- For Figures 2, 3, and 4 ... please include references to relevant literature for the following concepts: Shipstead’s model (Figure 2), the hierarchical model of working memory (Figure 3), and Cowan’s model (Figure 4).

This issue has not been resolved. Please explain why it is not possible.”

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out this issue, we have added direct citations to figure 2 for the description of Shipsted's model (Shipstead et al., 2015), and to figure 4 for Cowan’s model (Cowan 2016).  The Hierarchical model in figure 3 is the model we are proposing in this paper.  Given the confusion, particularly with the dual component model which is also hierarchical, we have moved figure 3 to later in the discussion in section 4. This re-ordering now makes it figure 5. We hope this change makes the figures more easily understandable and identifiable with the literature being cited in each section.

Thank you for your helpful feedback and time, we sincerely appreciate your help in improving this manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed important issues that were previously overlooked.

However, I still observe some problems with the definitions and references to the literature. The definitions of attention and attention control (lines 60–70) should be better supported by relevant literature. Currently, the authors cite only one paper—Cowan & Fristoe, 2006—which appears to be Cowan, N., Fristoe, N.M., Elliott, E.M., et al., Scope of attention, control of attention, and intelligence in children and adults, Memory & Cognition, 34, 1754–1768 (2006), https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195936. Please note that this is an experimental report based on 104 participants, including 52 ten-year-old children and 52 twenty-year-old undergraduates.

Because attention and attention control are key concepts in this review, they require a stronger theoretical foundation.

The authors demonstrate a significant lack of attention in compiling the reference list. This oversight is critical to the credibility of the review.

Line 776 – Is this reference correct? - Duncan, J. (n.d.). The Locus of Interference in the Perception of Simultaneous Stimuli.

Some references from the list appear to be missing in the text. Please review the reference list carefully. For example, missing in the text

Lines 837-839 -  McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. 

Lines 848 - Norman

Lines 852 - Oberauer, K. (2019)

Lines 869- Pak, R., McLaughlin, A. C., & Engle, R. (2024). 

Lines 871-872  - Raver, C. C., & Blair, C. (2016).

and many others

Author Response

Comments 1: “However, I still observe some problems with the definitions and references to the literature. The definitions of attention and attention control (lines 60–70) should be better supported by relevant literature. Currently, the authors cite only one paper—Cowan & Fristoe, 2006—which appears to be Cowan, N., Fristoe, N.M., Elliott, E.M., et al., Scope of attention, control of attention, and intelligence in children and adults, Memory & Cognition, 34, 1754–1768 (2006), https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195936. Please note that this is an experimental report based on 104 participants, including 52 ten-year-old children and 52 twenty-year-old undergraduates.
Because attention and attention control are key concepts in this review, they require a stronger theoretical foundation.”

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out this issue, we have reworked that paragraph and added the following text to address differing author’s definitions of attention control.

• Firstly we should understand if we are discussing attention or attention control, sometimes referred to as cognitive control. Oberauer, (2019) stated that there is division between the concept of attention as a limited resource, and the concept of attention as selective information processing or control. Others have used factor analytic measures to examine the distinction between attention control and selective attention (e.g., Kotyusov et al, 2023). Many authors refer to attention as having both a storage component, and control of what is stored in that storage component (Cowan & Fristoe, 2006). Attention control or cognitive control refers to the ability to control one’s attention, particularly in the face of task-irrelevant but distracting stimuli (Hasher et al, 2007). For example, in an anti-saccade task, a distracting asterisk is flashed on the opposite side of the screen from the stimulus that the participant must see in order to complete the task. If the participant allows their attention to be automatically directed to the flashing stimuli, they will miss the task-relevant stimuli unless they deliberately control their attention to keep it from wandering.

 

Comments 2: “The authors demonstrate a significant lack of attention in compiling the reference list. This oversight is critical to the credibility of the review.
Line 776 – Is this reference correct? - Duncan, J. (n.d.). The Locus of Interference in the Perception of Simultaneous Stimuli.
Some references from the list appear to be missing in the text. Please review the reference list carefully. For example, missing in the text
Lines 837-839 -  McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. 
Lines 848 - Norman
Lines 852 - Oberauer, K. (2019)
Lines 869- Pak, R., McLaughlin, A. C., & Engle, R. (2024). 
Lines 871-872  - Raver, C. C., & Blair, C. (2016).
and many others”

Response 2: Thank you for your thorough reviewing of our references, we have gone through our reference list and added missing information. Notably as mentioned the “Duncan, J. (n.d.). The Locus of Interference in the Perception of Simultaneous Stimuli” citation was missing a date and journal pages. Please let us know if we missed anything, and thank you again for your thorough audit of our paper, we very much appreciate it.