An official website of the United States government
Age-related differences in working memory (WM) can be large, but the exact sources are unclear. We hypothesized that young adults outperform older adults on WM tasks because they use controlled attention processes to prioritize the maintenance of relevant information in WM in a proactive mode, whereas older adults tend to rely on the strength of familiarity signals to make memory decisions in a reactive mode. We used a WM task that cued participants to prioritize one item over others and presented repeated lure probes that cause errors when one is engaged in a reactive mode. Results showed that, relative to young adults with full attention available to use proactive control during the delays, older adults with full attention (and young adults with divided attention) during the delays had exaggerated error rates to repeated lure probes compared to control probes. When the amount of proactive interference was increased (by repeating stimuli across trials), older adults were able to engage in proactive control, and this eliminated their exaggerated error rate (while young adults with divided attention could not). These results provide evidence for a dual mechanisms of control account of age differences in WM.
more »
« less
Are latent working memory items retrieved from long-term memory?
Switching one’s focus of attention between to-be-remembered items in working memory (WM) is critical for cognition, but the mechanisms by which this is accomplished are unclear. A long-term memory (LTM) account suggests that switching attention away from an item, and passively retaining and reactivating such “latent” items back into the focus of attention involves episodic LTM retrieval processes, even for delays of only a few seconds. We tested this hypothesis using a two-item, double-retrocue WM task that requires participants to switch attention away from and reactivate items followed by subsequent LTM tests for reactivated items from the initial WM task (vs. continuously retained or untested control items). We compared performance on these tests between older adults (a population with LTM deficits) and young adults with either full (Experiment 1) or divided (Experiment 2) attention during the WM delay periods. The effects of reactivating latent items, as well as ageing and divided attention, had significant effects on WM performance, but did not interact with or systematically affect subsequent LTM for reactivated versus control items on item-, location-, or associative-recognition memory judgements made with either high or low confidence. Experiment 3 confirmed that these effects did not depend on whether or not young participants were warned about the subsequent LTM tests before performing the WM task. These dissociations between WM and LTM are inconsistent with the LTM account of latent WM; they are more consistent with the dynamic processing model of WM (Current Directions in Psychological Science).
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1848440
- PAR ID:
- 10657775
- Publisher / Repository:
- SAGE Publications
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
- Volume:
- 77
- Issue:
- 8
- ISSN:
- 1747-0218
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1703 to 1726
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Multiple types of memory guide attention: Both long-term memory (LTM) and working memory (WM) effectively guide visual search. Furthermore, both types of memories can capture attention automatically, even when detrimental to performance. It is less clear, however, how LTM and WM cooperate or compete to guide attention in the same task. In a series of behavioral experiments, we show that LTM and WM reliably cooperate to guide attention: Visual search is faster when both memories cue attention to the same spatial location (relative to when only one memory can guide attention). LTM and WM competed to guide attention in more limited circumstances: Competition only occurred when these memories were in different dimensions – particularly when participants searched for a shape and held an accessory color in mind. Finally, we found no evidence for asymmetry in either cooperation or competition: There was no evidence that WM helped (or hindered) LTM-guided search more than the other way around. This lack of asymmetry was found despite differences in LTM-guided and WM-guided search overall, and differences in how two LTMs and two WMs compete or cooperate with each other to guide attention. This work suggests that, even if only one memory is currently task-relevant, WM and LTM can cooperate to guide attention; they can also compete when distracting features are salient enough. This work elucidates interactions between WM and LTM during attentional guidance, adding to the literature on costs and benefits to attention from multiple active memories.more » « less
-
Visual working memory (VWM) representations interact with attentional guidance, but there is controversy over whether multiple VWM items simultaneously influence attentional guidance. Extant studies relied on continuous variables like response times, which can obscure capture – especially if VWM representations cycle through interactive and non-interactive states. Previous conflicting findings regarding guidance when under high working memory (WM) load may be due to the use of noisier response time measures that mix capture and non-capture trials. Thus, we employed an oculomotor paradigm to characterize discrete attentional capture events under both high and low VWM load. Participants held one or two colors in memory, then executed a saccade to a target disk. On some trials, a distractor (sometimes VWM-matching) appeared simultaneously with the target. Eye movements were more frequently directed to a VWM-matching than a non-matching distractor for both load conditions. However, oculomotor capture by a VWM-matching distractor occurred less frequently under high compared with low load. These results suggest that attention is automatically guided toward items matching only one of two colors held in memory at a time, suggesting that items in VWM may cycle through attention-guiding and not-guiding states when more than one item is held in VWM and the task does not require that multiple items be maintained in an active, attention-guiding state.more » « less
-
Working memory (WM) is critical to many aspects of cognition, but it frequently fails. Much WM research has focused on capacity limits, but even for single, simple features, the fidelity of individual representations is limited. Why is this? One possibility is that, because of neural noise and interference, neural representations do not remain stable across a WM delay, nor do they simply decay, but instead, they may “drift” over time to a new, less accurate state. We tested this hypothesis in a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of a match/nonmatch WM recognition task for a single item with a single critical feature: orientation. We developed a novel pattern-based index of “representational drift” to characterize ongoing changes in brain activity patterns throughout the WM maintenance period, and we were successfully able to predict performance on the match/nonmatch recognition task using this representational drift index. Specifically, in trials where the target and probe stimuli matched, participants incorrectly reported more nonmatches when their activity patterns drifted away from the target. In trials where the target and probe did not match, participants incorrectly reported more matches when their activity patterns drifted toward the probe. On the basis of these results, we contend that neural noise does not cause WM errors merely by degrading representations and increasing random guessing; instead, one means by which noise introduces errors is by pushing WM representations away from the target and toward other meaningful (yet incorrect) configurations. Thus, we demonstrate that behaviorally meaningful drift within representation space can be indexed by neuroimaging.more » « less
-
We often use cues from our environment when we get stuck searching our memories, but prior research has failed to show benefits of cuing with other, randomly selected list items during memory search. What accounts for this discrepancy? We proposed that cues’ content critically determines their effectiveness and sought to select the right cues by building a computational model of how cues affect memory search. Participants ( N = 195 young adults from the United States) recalled significantly more items when receiving our model’s best (vs. worst) cue. Our model provides an account of why some cues better aid recall: Effective cues activate contexts most similar to the remaining items’ contexts, facilitating recall in an unsearched area of memory. We discuss our contributions in relation to prominent theories about the effect of external cues.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231217723
