Literature DB >> 29094991

When shorter delays lead to worse memories: Task disruption makes visual working memory temporarily vulnerable to test interference.

Benchi Wang1, Jan Theeuwes1, Christian N L Olivers1.   

Abstract

Evidence shows that visual working memory (VWM) is strongly served by attentional mechanisms, whereas other evidence shows that VWM representations readily survive when attention is being taken away. To reconcile these findings, we tested the hypothesis that directing attention away makes a memory representation vulnerable to interference from the test pattern, but only temporarily so. When given sufficient time, the robustness of VWM can be restored so that it is protected against test interference. In 5 experiments, participants remembered a single grating for a later memory test. In the crucial conditions, participants also performed a letter change detection task in between, during the delay period. Experiments 1-3 demonstrate and replicate the predicted effect: The intervening task had an adverse effect on memory performance, but only when the test display appeared immediately after the secondary task. At longer delays of 3.5 s, memory performance was on a par with conditions in which there was no intervening task. By varying the similarity of the test pattern to the memorized pattern, Experiments 4 and 5 further showed that performance suffered at early test intervals, unless the test item was dissimilar to the memory item. The results provide positive evidence for test interference, and demonstrates that the susceptibility to interference only occurs temporarily, as memory is restored when attention is allowed to return to the memorandum. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29094991     DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000468

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  8 in total

1.  Effect of attentional selection on working memory for depth in a retro-cueing paradigm.

Authors:  Zhuolun Li; Mengxuan Tong; Shiting Chen; Jiehui Qian
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-01-07

2.  Testing effects in visual short-term memory: The case of an object's size.

Authors:  Tal Makovski
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-10

Review 3.  Distraction in Visual Working Memory: Resistance is Not Futile.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Lorenc; Remington Mallett; Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 20.229

4.  Tracking attentional states: Assessing the relationship between sustained and selective focused attention in visual working memory.

Authors:  Andra Arnicane; Alessandra S Souza
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Working memory prioritization impacts neural recovery from distraction.

Authors:  Remington Mallett; Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2019-09-20       Impact factor: 4.027

Review 6.  Neural mechanisms of attending to items in working memory.

Authors:  Sanjay G Manohar; Nahid Zokaei; Sean J Fallon; Tim P Vogels; Masud Husain
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 8.989

7.  EEG dynamics reveal a dissociation between storage and selective attention within working memory.

Authors:  Eren Günseli; Johannes Jacobus Fahrenfort; Dirk van Moorselaar; Konstantinos Christos Daoultzis; Martijn Meeter; Christian N L Olivers
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Selection in working memory is resource-demanding: Concurrent task effects on the retro-cue effect.

Authors:  Yin-Ting Lin; Edyta Sasin; Daryl Fougnie
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 2.199

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.