Presentation of my Study design

1. Inhibiting irrelevant information
BENEFITS & COSTS OF HIGH WORKING MEMORY CAPACITY
BY JONATHAN MALL

2. Structure
 Why? Earlier work.
 Individual differences
 Inhibition
 Retrieval induced forgetting
 Retrieval induced facilitation

3. C ross-domain interference between verbal & spatial serial order working
memory tasks
B y C and ice C . M orey & Jonathan T. M all
Thanks to my promoter Addie Johnson
Introduction Results
The question whether verbal and spatial memory is independent Cross-domain dual retention significantly decreases memory
from each other has previously resulted in conflicting findings. We performance. However, verbal memory exhibited a more pronounced
aim to reconcile the evidence and together with our results shed doubt on the recency effect which might be explained by supposing that the final item in a
popular model of working memory (WM) featuring strictly independent stores. list is maintained in a short-term store, protected from subsequent interference.
A domain-general store for both verbal and spatial information is suggested The reduction in performance in the uncued conditions, especially for the
and individual differences are considered. spatial task for which this decrement is present even at the shortest list length
(3), suggests that verbal and spatial serial memory share some resource.
Earlier studies found little or no interference between concurrent visuo-spatial
and verbal working memory tests but strong interference between simultaneous
tasks involving only one domain [1-3], supporting a modular WM model [4].
Individual Differences
However, a general capacity limit [5], an unpredicted strong effect of irrelevant High working memory capacity individuals seemed better able to
speech [6] and the common use of unequaled tasks might have prevented clear ignore irrelevant information. Using single task performance as a
interpretations. measure of Working memory capacity, a median split resulted in two groups
(high-WM & low-WM). Comparing their performance on Cued and Uncued
We constructed tasks that were as equivalent as possible to test for cross- trials we found a robust difference. High-WM individuals seem better able to
domain interference in order to fairly claim that interference between a verbal use the cue to guide their behavior.
and spatial memory task reflects competition for a domain-general resource.
Method
Similar to Guérard & Tremblay’s [7] serial verbal and spatial reconstruction
task, subjects had to report the correct order of spoken words or locations of
visually presented squares. Words and locations were alternately shown, one at
a time. They were either cued with the domain that would be tested (cued
condition), saw a question mark (uncued) or received the correct cue but were
only presented with one domain (single). The test screen always required order
reconstruction of one domain. N=64 university students.
Conclusion
time We found clear cross-domain interference between the verbal and
spatial serial memory tasks, which contradicts a strict modular
account of working memory. Concurrently holding verbal and spatial
information in working memory negatively affected the recall of either, to a
similar extent in each task.
References
[1] Cocchini, Logie, Della Sala, MacPherson & Baddeley (2002). [2] Farmer, Berman & Fletcher (1986). [3] Logie, Zucco & Baddeley (1990). [4] Baddeley (2007). [5] Saults & Cowan (2007). [6] Jones, Farrand, Stuart & Morris (1995). [7] Guérard & Tremblay (2008).
For more information or a copy of this poster, please contact J.T. Mall (j.t.mall@rug.nl) or visit http://www.rug.nl/staff/c.c.morey/research

4. Procedure
time

5. Results
 Cross-domain dual retention
significantly decreases memory
performance.
 For verbal
 For spatial information

6. Individual differences
 Domain specificity
 There could be separate working memory systems for different
modalities or types of representations (e.g. verbal vs. spatial)
 An individual with verbal processing expertise
should have fewer attentional resources available for
the storage components involved in a spatial task &
vice versa.
 But our data shows that performance covaries across domains
If you are good, you are good in both the verbal & spatial task

7. Definition
 Working memory capacity:
 number of items that can be recalled during a complex working
memory task.
 Measured by: a memory span test that is embedded within a
secondary processing task
 We use single task performance (STM)
 Sum of all correct items
 Median split of participants -> high & low wmc

8. Procedure
time

9. Individual differences
 N=64
* *

10. Earlier studies
Dichotic listening procedure (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001)
Ant Mug
Bar Car
Two Tim
WMC difference
Ant
.
Bar
.
Two
Bottom-up attentional capture

11. Individual differences
 Cocktail Party effect:
 Stroop: (Kane & Engle, 2003).
Congruent: Blue, Green, Red,
 high WMC make fewer word- Incongruent : Blue, Green, Red
naming errors on incongruent trials
when they were relatively rare
It seems, that WMC modulates the active suppression or inhibition
of “automatic” processes.
(Brewin & Beaton, 2002; Rosen & Engle, 1998)

12. New Study
 Is the proposed inhibition effect the same as
proposed for long term memory retrieval?
 Subjects: Dutch students who completed a battery
of Working Memory tasks (Operation Span, Symmetry Span & Raven)
 Experiment: Retrieval induced forgetting

13. Retrieval induced forgetting
LOUD – bus
 Learning: (all items) LOUD – song
LOUD –
 10 categories + 6 exemplars SHARP – nail
SHARP – knife WEAPON – machete
SHARP – WEAPON – glas
WEAPON –
 Study: (half the exemplars from half the categories) SHARP – n____
SHARP – k____
20 min filler
 Retrieve exemplar SHARP –
LOUD – b____
 Retrieval Practice (RP) LOUD – s____
LOUD –
 Test: (all items)
WEAPON – m____
 Report all exemplars WEAPON – g_____
WEAPON –

14. Retrieval induced forgetting
LOUD – bus
 Learning: LOUD – song
LOUD –
SHARP – nail
SHARP – knife WEAPON – machete
SHARP – WEAPON – glas
WEAPON –
 Study (retrieval):
SHARP – n____
RP+ SHARP – k____
 RP+
20 min filler
NRP SHARP –
WEAPON – machete
 RP- WEAPON – glas LOUD – b____
WEAPON – LOUD – s____
 NRP WEAPON – LOUD –
WEAPON –
WEAPON – RP- LOUD – street
LOUD – applause
LOUD –
 Test: WEAPON – m____
WEAPON – g_____
WEAPON –

15. Stimuli
 RP+ Category 6 – Exemplar 1
Category 1 – Exemplar 1
Category 1 – Exemplar 2 Category 6 – Exemplar 2
 RP- Category 1 – Exemplar 3
Category 1 – Exemplar 4
Category 1 – Exemplar 5
Category 6 – Exemplar 3
Category 6 – Exemplar 4
Category 6 – Exemplar 5
Category 1 – Exemplar 6 Category 6 – Exemplar 6
 NRP Category 2 – Exemplar 1
Category 2 – Exemplar 2
Category 7 – Exemplar 1
Category 7 – Exemplar 2
Category 2 – Exemplar 3 Category 7 – Exemplar 3
Category 2 – Exemplar 4 Category 7 – Exemplar 4
Category 2 – Exemplar 5 Category 7 – Exemplar 5
Category 2 – Exemplar 6 Category 7 – Exemplar 6
Category 3 – Exemplar 1 Category 8 – Exemplar 1
Category 8 – Exemplar 2
20 min filler
Category 3 – Exemplar 2
Category 3 – Exemplar 3 Category 8 – Exemplar 3
Category 3 – Exemplar 4 Category 8 – Exemplar 4
RIF Category 3 – Exemplar 5 Category 8 – Exemplar 5
Category 8 – Exemplar 6
Category 3 – Exemplar 6
Category 4 – Exemplar 1 Category 9 – Exemplar 1
Category 4 – Exemplar 2 Category 9 – Exemplar 2
Category 4 – Exemplar 3 Category 9 – Exemplar 3
Category 4 – Exemplar 4 Category 9 – Exemplar 4
Category 4 – Exemplar 5 Category 9 – Exemplar 5
Category 4 – Exemplar 6 Category 9 – Exemplar 6
Category 5 – Exemplar 1 Category 10 – Exemplar 1
Category 5 – Exemplar 2 Category 10 – Exemplar 2
Category 5 – Exemplar 3 Category 10 – Exemplar 3
Category 5 – Exemplar 4 Category 10 – Exemplar 4
Category 5 – Exemplar 5 Category 10 – Exemplar 5
Category 5 – Exemplar 6 Category 10 – Exemplar 6

16. Hypothesis
 If high WMC modulates inhibition during retrieval
practice, a stronger RIF effect should be observed.
 However, many subjects required

17. Stimuli
 RP+
 RP- Category 1 – Exempla 1 Category 6 – Exemplar 1
Sharp - Weapon
Category 1 – Exemplar 2 Category 6 – Exemplar 2
 NRP Category 1 – Exemplar 3 Category 6 – Exemplar 3
Category 1 – Exemplar 4 Category 6 – Exemplar 4
Category 1 – Exemplar 5 Category 6 – Exemplar 5
 Shared feature Category 1 – Exemplar 6
Category 2 – Exemplar 1
Category 6 – Exemplar 6
Category 7 – Exemplar 1
Category 2 – Exemplar 2 Category 7 – Exemplar 2
Category 2 – Exemplar 3 Category 7 – Exemplar 3
Category 2 – Exemplar 4 Category 7 – Exemplar 4
Category 2 – Exemplar 5 Category 7 – Exemplar 5
Category 2 – Exemplar 6 Category 7 – Exemplar 6
Category 3 – Exemplar 1 Category 8 – Exemplar 1
Category 8 – Exemplar 2
20 min filler
Category 3 – Exemplar 2
Category 3 – Exemplar 3 Category 8 – Exemplar 3
Category 3 – Exemplar 4 Category 8 – Exemplar 4
Category 3 – Exemplar 5 Category 8 – Exemplar 5
Category 3 – Exemplar 6 Category 8 – Exemplar 6
Category 4 – Exemplar 1 Category 9 – Exemplar 1
Category 4 – Exemplar 2 Category 9 – Exemplar 2
Category 4 – Exemplar 3 Category 9 – Exemplar 3
Category 4 – Exemplar 4 Category 9 – Exemplar 4
Category 4 – Exemplar 5 Category 9 – Exemplar 5
Category 4 – Exemplar 6 Category 9 – Exemplar 6
Category 5 – Exemplar 1 Category 10 – Exemplar 1
Category 5 – Exemplar 2 Category 10 – Exemplar 2
Category 5 – Exemplar 3 Category 10 – Exemplar 3
Category 5 – Exemplar 4 Category 10 – Exemplar 4
Category 5 – Exemplar 5 Category 10 – Exemplar 5
Category 5 – Exemplar 6 Category 10 – Exemplar 6

18. Shared feature
 RP+
Sharp Weapon
 RP-
 NRP SCHERP - zaag WAPEN - kris
SCHERP - vork WAPEN - baret
SCHERP - spies WAPEN - glas
SCHERP - floret WAPEN - hakmes
SCHERP - degen WAPEN - machete
SCHERP - ijspriem WAPEN - werpster
 Study (retrieval):
 longer RT due to bigger search-set
 More inhibition required to retrieve target item
 Test:
 Bigger RIF effect
 Individual differences: RIF stronger for low WMC

19. Hypotheses
 If high WMC modulates inhibition during retrieval
practice, a stronger RIF effect should be observed.
 If a larger search set requires more inhibition during
retrieval, a stronger RIF effect should be observed for
shared feature items.
 RT should increase with search set size
 Individual differences might exist (low WMC more RIF)

20. Long term effect
 Long term effects of testing. (Chan, 2010)
 Facilitation of tested and non-tested items after longer delays

21. Options for delayed test
 Only present the recall test
 Redo the task
 Redo the task but switch RP+ & RP- items

22. Hypotheses
 WMC modulates inhibition during retrieval practice
leading to a stronger RIF effect.
 A larger search set requires more inhibition during
retrieval leading to a stronger RIF effect.
 Former item inhibition facilitates relearning after a
24h+ retention interval.

23.  Questions, suggestions, criticism…

24. FIN