Search

Working memory (WM) holds and manipulates representations for ongoing cognition. Oberauer (Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 45–100, 2009) distinguishes between two analogous WM sub-systems: a declarative WM which handles the objects of thought, and a procedural WM which handles the representations of (cognitive) actions. Here, we assessed whether analogous effects are observed when participants switch between memory sets (declarative representations) and when they switch between task sets (procedural representations). One mechanism assumed to facilitate switching in procedural WM is the inhibition of previously used, but currently irrelevant task sets, as indexed by n-2 task-repetition costs (Mayr & Keele, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(1), 4–26, 2000). In this study we tested for an analogous effect in declarative WM. We assessed the evidence for n-2 list-repetition costs across eight experiments in which participants switched between memory lists to perform speeded classifications, mental arithmetic, or a local recognition test. N-2 list-repetition costs were obtained consistently in conditions assumed to increase interference between memory lists, and when lists formed chunks in long-term memory. Further analyses across experiments revealed a substantial contribution of episodic memory to n-2 list-repetition costs, thereby questioning the interpretation of n-2 repetition costs as reflecting inhibition. We reanalyzed the data of eight task-switching experiments, and observed that episodic memory also contributes to n-2 task-repetition costs. Taken together, these results show analogous processing principles in declarative and procedural WM, and question the relevance of inhibitory processes for efficient switching between mental sets.

Inhibition of abandoned tasks in task switching can be inferred when a worse performance is found with n - 2 task repetitions (ABA sequences) than with nonrepetitions (CBA sequences). Recent evidence has shown that this inhibition effect decreases with long intertrial intervals (i.e., response-cue intervals, RCIs). Two alternatives have been proposed to account for this decrease. One alternative attributes the observed decrease to the decay of inhibition itself. The other alternative proposes that decay of the activation of competing tasks reduces the interference and leads to less inhibition. To decide between these alternatives, we manipulated RCI trialwise. The results favor the decay-of-activation account as an explanation for the decreased inhibition effect. This links the amount of inhibition to the activation level of the competing tasks, whereas evidence for the decay of inhibition remains weak.