Literature DB >> 28326058

Reporting and Interpreting Working Memory Performance in n-back Tasks.

Adrian Meule1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  accuracy; emotional stimuli; n-back task; reaction times; working memory

Year:  2017        PMID: 28326058      PMCID: PMC5339218          DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00352

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Psychol        ISSN: 1664-1078


× No keyword cloud information.
Working memory is an executive function, which involves holding information in mind and mentally working with it (Diamond, 2013). A widely used measure for the assessment of working memory function is the n-back task (Owen et al., 2005). Here, participants are typically instructed to monitor a series of stimuli and to respond whenever a stimulus is presented that is the same as the one presented n trials previously. Common versions are 2-back and 3-back tasks, in which participants have to respond to stimuli that have been presented two or three trials earlier. Zero-back and 1-back versions are also often used as control conditions. In most studies, participants are required to respond with a button press to the relevant stimuli (= targets) and to withhold responses to distractor stimuli (= non-targets). Yet, there are also studies, in which participants are required to indicate for each trial whether the stimulus represents a target or a non-target (e.g., by pressing two different buttons; Jonides et al., 1997; Carlson et al., 1998; Perlstein et al., 2003; Harvey et al., 2005; Miller et al., 2009). Stimuli in classical n-back tasks are numbers or words, but pictorial versions, which display, for example, emotional scenes (Marx et al., 2011; Hur et al., in press), faces (Cromheeke and Mueller, 2016), or food (Meule et al., 2012; Meule, 2016) have also been used in recent years. As dependent variables, most studies report response latencies (= reaction times) and accuracy (in %) or the number of errors. With increasing task difficulty (i.e., with increasing ns), reaction times usually increase and accuracy decreases (e.g., Jonides et al., 1997; Carlson et al., 1998; Perlstein et al., 2003; Harvey et al., 2005; Miller et al., 2009; Schmidt et al., 2009). Similarly, reaction times and accuracy are usually negatively correlated (e.g., Carter et al., 1998). In other words, higher reaction times are associated with a higher number of errors. Although this relationship exists, it appears that reaction times and accuracy have dissociable correlates. For example, Jaeggi et al. (2010) examined various n-back tasks and found several dissociations between reaction times and accuracy. For instance, higher accuracy (but not reaction times) in visuospatial, auditory, and dual 3-back tasks was correlated with higher fluid intelligence as measured with the Raven test. In visuospatial n-back tasks, reaction times (but not accuracy) were associated with reading span and digit span forward performance. In addition to these findings, a recent study by Hur et al. (in press) further highlights the role of reaction times vs. accuracy. In that study, pictures of emotional scenes were used in a 0-back task (labeled as perception task) and a 2-back task (labeled as working memory task). The authors argued that there was a ceiling effect in accuracy and more meaningful variation in reaction times in the perception task and, thus, they focused on interpreting reaction time results. In the working memory task, however, there was more variability in accuracy and less variability in reaction times and, thus, they focused on interpreting accuracy results because “participants' efforts are generally focused more on performing the task accurately than responding as fast as they can” (p. 4). In light of these findings, how is interpretation of results affected when associations for some n-back task performance indices can be found but not for others? For example, in two studies that either used emotional words (Kopf et al., 2013) or pictures of emotional scenes (Marx et al., 2011) it was found that accuracy (but not reaction times) differed as a function of emotional valence of the stimuli. In contrast, effects of emotional stimuli (here: faces) were only found for reaction times and not for accuracy in a recent study by Cromheeke and Mueller (2016). Yet, the authors concluded that “allocating attention to affective information improved working memory” (p. 295). It might be argued that it is at least debatable if emotional stimuli indeed affected working memory performance as participants' ability to discriminate between targets and non-targets was not influenced. What these examples illustrate is that reaction times and accuracy in n-back tasks should not be interpreted interchangeably. Specifically, I argue that it is not reasonable when different studies reach similar conclusions (e.g., that effects of certain stimuli on or certain group differences in working memory performance were found), although these conclusions are based on different dependent variables (e.g., on reaction times in one study and on accuracy in another study). In addition to these considerations, what constitutes accuracy is surprisingly rarely defined in most reports and/or it includes different types of errors (e.g., Jonides et al., 1997; Carlson et al., 1998; Perlstein et al., 2003; Harvey et al., 2005; Miller et al., 2009; Dodds et al., 2011). In n-back tasks, participants can either correctly press a button in response to targets (= hits), incorrectly press a button in response to non-targets (= commission errors or false alarms), and incorrectly do not press a button in response to targets (= omission errors or misses). However, researchers often do not make this distinction (for an exception see, e.g., Schmidt et al., 2009). In contrast to motor inhibition tasks (e.g., Go/No-go tasks), in which the main measure of interest is commission errors (e.g., Newman et al., 1985), omission errors are more frequent than commission errors in n-back tasks. Of note, it appears that these two types of errors have different correlates and, thus, may represent different processes. For example, in two studies that used 2-back tasks with food and neutral pictures (Meule et al., 2012; Meule, 2016), reaction times were positively correlated with the number of omission errors [r( = 0.440, p < 0.001 and r( = 0.449, p = 0.001], but not with the number of commission errors [r( = 0.095, p = 0.435 and r( = 0.178, p = 0.188]. Omission and commission errors were unrelated [r( = 0.093, p = 0.443 and r( = 0.145, p = 0.285]. Moreover, in a study by Oberauer (2005), in which neutral words were used, only omission but not commission errors or reaction times were associated with measures of working memory capacity. In conclusion, it is argued that researchers need to carefully interpret their findings derived from n-back tasks, particularly when these findings diverge depending on whether using reaction times or accuracy. Moreover, it appears necessary that researchers not only report accuracy but also differentiate between omission and commission errors. In addition, it may be preferable to report other task performance indices that are calculated from hits and false alarms such as discrimination index d′ and response bias C, as has been suggested by researchers who used modified versions of the n-back task (Kane et al., 2007; Haatveit et al., 2010). As the n-back task has been criticized for lacking clear associations with other working memory tasks (Kane et al., 2007; Jaeggi et al., 2010), using more fine-grained analyses of n-back task performance beyond reporting reaction times and accuracy may, therefore, reveal clearer insights about its validity as a measure of working memory performance, its neural or psychopathological correlates, and its utility in applied neuropsychology.

Author contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
  21 in total

1.  The validity of d prime as a working memory index: results from the "Bergen n-back task".

Authors:  Beathe C Haatveit; Kjetil Sundet; Kenneth Hugdahl; Torill Ueland; Ingrid Melle; Ole A Andreassen
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2010-04-09       Impact factor: 2.475

2.  Verbal Working Memory Load Affects Regional Brain Activation as Measured by PET.

Authors:  J Jonides; E H Schumacher; E E Smith; E J Lauber; E Awh; S Minoshima; R A Koeppe
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  The power of a smile: Stronger working memory effects for happy faces in adolescents compared to adults.

Authors:  Sofie Cromheeke; Sven C Mueller
Journal:  Cogn Emot       Date:  2015-02-03

4.  Emotional influences on perception and working memory.

Authors:  Juyoen Hur; Alexandru D Iordan; Florin Dolcos; Howard Berenbaum
Journal:  Cogn Emot       Date:  2016-08-16

5.  Cognitive control and brain resources in major depression: an fMRI study using the n-back task.

Authors:  Philippe-Olivier Harvey; Philippe Fossati; Jean-Baptiste Pochon; Richard Levy; Guillaume Lebastard; Stéphane Lehéricy; Jean-François Allilaire; Bruno Dubois
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2005-04-08       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Passive avoidance in syndromes of disinhibition: psychopathy and extraversion.

Authors:  J P Newman; C S Widom; S Nathan
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1985-05

7.  High-calorie food-cues impair working memory performance in high and low food cravers.

Authors:  Adrian Meule; Ann Kathrin Skirde; Rebecca Freund; Claus Vögele; Andrea Kübler
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2012-05-18       Impact factor: 3.868

8.  Is the n-back task a valid neuropsychological measure for assessing working memory?

Authors:  K M Miller; C C Price; M S Okun; H Montijo; D Bowers
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 2.813

9.  No gender differences in brain activation during the N-back task: an fMRI study in healthy individuals.

Authors:  Heike Schmidt; Jigar Jogia; Kristina Fast; Tessa Christodoulou; Morgan Haldane; Veena Kumari; Sophia Frangou
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 5.038

10.  The effect of emotional content on brain activation and the late positive potential in a word n-back task.

Authors:  Juliane Kopf; Thomas Dresler; Philipp Reicherts; Martin J Herrmann; Andreas Reif
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-26       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  16 in total

1.  Neural correlates of maintenance working memory, as well as relevant structural qualities, are associated with earlier antiretroviral treatment initiation in vertically transmitted HIV.

Authors:  Sarah J Heany; Nicole Phillips; Samantha Brooks; Jean-Paul Fouche; Landon Myer; Heather Zar; Dan J Stein; Jacqueline Hoare
Journal:  J Neurovirol       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 2.643

2.  Effects of the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Binaural Beat Brain Stimulation and Short-Term Training on Simultaneously Assessed Visuospatial and Verbal Working Memories, Signal Detection Measures, Response Times, and Intrasubject Response Time Variabilities: A Within-Subject Randomized Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Vahid Rakhshan; Peyman Hassani-Abharian; Mohammadtaghi Joghataei; Mohammad Nasehi; Reza Khosrowabadi
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 3.246

3.  Fatigue Across the Lifespan in Men and Women: State vs. Trait.

Authors:  Glenn R Wylie; Amanda J Pra Sisto; Helen M Genova; John DeLuca
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 3.473

4.  Alcohol Use in Adolescence and Later Working Memory: Findings From a Large Population-Based Birth Cohort.

Authors:  Liam Mahedy; Matt Field; Suzanne Gage; Gemma Hammerton; Jon Heron; Matt Hickman; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  Alcohol Alcohol       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 2.826

5.  Working Memory With Emotional Distraction in Monolingual and Bilingual Children.

Authors:  Monika Janus; Ellen Bialystok
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-08-28

6.  Neural and Behavioral Effects of an Adaptive Online Verbal Working Memory Training in Healthy Middle-Aged Adults.

Authors:  Mónica Emch; Isabelle Ripp; Qiong Wu; Igor Yakushev; Kathrin Koch
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 5.750

7.  Cognitive processes related to problematic pornography use (PPU): A systematic review of experimental studies.

Authors:  J Castro-Calvo; V Cervigón-Carrasco; R Ballester-Arnal; C Giménez-García
Journal:  Addict Behav Rep       Date:  2021-04-07

8.  Iron Deficiency in Menstruating Adult Women: Much More than Anemia.

Authors:  M Cristina Fernandez-Jimenez; Gemma Moreno; Ione Wright; Pei-Chun Shih; M Pilar Vaquero; Angel F Remacha
Journal:  Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle)       Date:  2020-01-29

9.  Cognitive load influences oculomotor behavior in natural scenes.

Authors:  Kerri Walter; Peter Bex
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Effective connectivity of the right anterior insula in schizophrenia: The salience network and task-negative to task-positive transition.

Authors:  Qiang Luo; Baobao Pan; Huaguang Gu; Molly Simmonite; Susan Francis; Peter F Liddle; Lena Palaniyappan
Journal:  Neuroimage Clin       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 4.881

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.