Search

We investigated the role of two kinds of attention-visual and central attention-for the maintenance of visual representations in working memory (WM). In Experiment 1 we directed attention to individual items in WM by presenting cues during the retention interval of a continuous delayed-estimation task, and instructing participants to think of the cued items. Attending to items improved recall commensurate with the frequency with which items were attended (0, 1, or 2 times). Experiments 1 and 3 further tested which kind of attention-visual or central-was involved in WM maintenance. We assessed the dual-task costs of two types of distractor tasks, one tapping sustained visual attention and one tapping central attention. Only the central attention task yielded substantial dual-task costs, implying that central attention substantially contributes to maintenance of visual information in WM. Experiment 2 confirmed that the visual-attention distractor task was demanding enough to disrupt performance in a task relying on visual attention. We combined the visual-attention and the central-attention distractor tasks with a multiple object tracking (MOT) task. Distracting visual attention, but not central attention, impaired MOT performance. Jointly, the three experiments provide a double dissociation between visual and central attention, and between visual WM and visual object tracking: Whereas tracking multiple targets across the visual filed depends on visual attention, visual WM depends mostly on central attention.

Is forgetting from working memory (WM) better explained by decay or interference? The answer to this question is the topic of an ongoing debate. Recently, a number of studies showed that performance in tests of visual WM declines with an increasing unfilled retention interval. This finding was interpreted as revealing decay. Alternatively, it can be explained by interference theories as an effect of temporal distinctiveness. According to decay theories, forgetting depends on the absolute time elapsed since the event to be retrieved. In contrast, temporal distinctiveness theories predict that memory depends on relative time, that is, the time since the to-be-retrieved event relative to the time since other, potentially interfering events. In the present study, we contrasted the effects of absolute time and relative time on forgetting from visual WM, using a continuous color recall task. To this end, we varied the retention interval and the inter-trial interval. The error in reporting the target color was a function of the ratio of the retention interval to the inter-trial interval, as predicted by temporal distinctiveness theories. Mixture modeling revealed that lower temporal distinctiveness produced a lower probability of reporting the target, but no changes in its precision in memory. These data challenge the role of decay in accounting for performance in tests of visual WM, and show that the relative spacing of events in time determines the degree of interference.

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.

The concept of attention has a prominent place in cognitive psychology. Attention can be directed not only to perceptual information, but also to information in working memory (WM). Evidence for an internal focus of attention has come from the retro-cue effect: Performance in tests of visual WM is improved when attention is guided to the test-relevant contents of WM ahead of testing them. The retro-cue paradigm has served as a test bed to empirically investigate the functions and limits of the focus of attention in WM. In this article, we review the growing body of (behavioral) studies on the retro-cue effect. We evaluate the degrees of experimental support for six hypotheses about what causes the retro-cue effect: (1) Attention protects representations from decay, (2) attention prioritizes the selected WM contents for comparison with a probe display, (3) attended representations are strengthened in WM, (4) not-attended representations are removed from WM, (5) a retro-cue to the retrieval target provides a head start for its retrieval before decision making, and (6) attention protects the selected representation from perceptual interference. The extant evidence provides support for the last four of these hypotheses.

Two experiments evaluated history effects on induced and operant variability. College students typed three-digit sequences on a computer keyboard. Sequence variability was induced (by no reinforcement or variation- independent reinforcement) or reinforced (by variation- or repetition-dependent reinforcement). Conditions with induced and operant variability were presented according to a reverse between-groups design. In Experiment 1, we examined transitions from the variation or repetition contingencies to no reinforcement, and vice versa. In Experiment 2, the variation or repetition contingencies were followed or preceded by variation-independent reinforcement. The results showed that (1) a history of no reinforcement impaired operant variability learning; (2) induced variability levels were higher and lower after a history of reinforcement for variation and repetition, respectively; (3) repetition was more easily disrupted by no reinforcement and independent reinforcement than was variation; and (4) response variability and stability were a function of past and current reinforcement conditions. These results indicate that reinforcement history influences both induced and operant variability levels.