Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (10)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors Impacts Spatial and Verbal STM
- 1. Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors Impact on Spatial and Verbal Short-term Memory Erik Marsja1 , John Everett Marsh2 , Gregory Neely1 , Patrik Hanson1 , Jessica K-Ljungberg1,3 1 Department of Psychology, Umeå University, Sweden 2 School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, UK 3 School of Psychology, Cardiff University, UK Contact: erik.marsja at umu.se, erik at marsja.se, http://www.marsja.se
- 2. Domains of short-term memory June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 2
- 3. Distraction & STM • Irrelevant sounds makes us forget • Changing-state vs Steady-state (see Dalton & Hughes, 2014): –”A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B-A” vs. ”A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A” June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 3
- 4. Distraction & STM • Sudden and unexpected changes (i.e., deviants; e.g., ”a-a-a-b-a-a-a”) • Temporal deviants (Hughes et al., 2005) • Change in voice (i.e., from male to female; Hughes et al., 2007) • Change of sound (e.g., Lange, 2005) June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 4
- 5. Domain-general or domain- specific? • Domain-general: – E.g., Cowan’s Model of STM (1988, 1995) • Domain-specific: – Primacy model (e.g., the phonological loop; e.g., Page & Norris, 2003) – Baddeley’s Model (e.g., Baddeley, 2015) June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 5
- 6. Multisensory perspective • Predictive coding framework (e.g., Quak, 2015): – Unexpected events -> mismatch –> model update – STM is amodal –> multisensory • Representations held in memory regardless of domain or modality June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 6
- 7. Spatial vs. Verbal STM & Distraction • Deviants do not affect spatial (Lange, 2005) – Only affected verbal STM – Visual spatial deviants • Rectangles changing color • Distractors moving prior to target -> small effect STM consists of at least spatial and verbal domains (Lange, 2005) June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 7
- 8. Spatial vs. Verbal STM • Visual deviants less potent (Leiva et al., 2015) • Spatial change not examined • Tactile deviants • Multisensory June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 8
- 9. The current study • Domain general; – A spatial change (i.e., from one side of the body to the other) would disrupt performance in both spatial and verbal STM tasks • Domain specific; – A spatial change should disrupt performance in the spatial task only June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 9
- 10. Method - sample • N = 29 • Age = 18 – 42 • Reported: – Normal hearing and seing – No somatosensory deficits June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 10
- 11. Method – STM Tasks • Serial-recall (i.e., recall the items in the order they were presented) – Verbal task – Spatial task June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 11
- 12. Method – STM tasks • 7 targets presented one at a time - Spatial: dots on a 5x5 matrix - Verbal: 7 digits from the set of 1-9 June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 12
- 13. Method – distractors • Multisensory stream – 10 distractors June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 13
- 14. Method – distractors • Standard trials: – Sounds and vibrations on one side of the body (e.g., right ear & right upper arm) – 80 % of trials • Deviant trials: – Change from one side of the body to the other (e.g., from right to left) – 20 % of trials June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 14
- 15. Method – durations June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 15
- 16. Results • Proportion of recalled items • 2 (Task: Spatial, Verbal) x 2 (trial type: Standard, Deviant) ANOVA for repeated measures June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 16
- 17. Results June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 17
- 18. Conclusions June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 18
- 19. Conclusions • Predictive coding framework: – MMN (Winkler, et al.m 2007) – Violations of expectation • Forced-choice paradigms (e.g., Parmentier et al.,, 2014) • Short-term memory (e.g., Vachon et al., 2012) – Model update -> lesser activation of the memory traces? (cf., Cowan, 1995) June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 19
- 20. Next steps • Spatial change did affect both tasks: – We do not know: • Auditory change? • Tactile change? • Both? • Will another type of change affect both tasks? June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 20
- 21. Thank you for your attention! June 16, 2016 IMRF2016 - Marsja - Spatial Change in Multisensory Distractors 21 Dr. Marsh Dr. Neely Dr. Hansson Dr. K-Ljungberg
Editor's Notes
- I am going to present the first study in an ongoing project. Our findings suggest that there spatial and verbal short-term memory are not so distinctive at all.
- When it comes to attention short-term memory is typically divided into two domains; the visuo-spatial and the verbal. In the visuo-spatial information on spatial locations are held whereas in the verbal it is more to auditory but also visual. For instance, rehearsing visually presented digits would be verbal memory.
- As with many of our cognitive abilities the short-term memory have been found to be prone to distractions. In one research paradigm the effect of irrelevant sounds have been found to affect encoding of memory. Changing-sounds like the sounds of a changed to b back and forth has been found to be more distracting compared to a steady stream of just the sound of the letter A.
- Of particular interest for the current study sudden and unexpected events, called deviants, have also been found to disrupt short-term memory performance; Changing the isi between two sounds in the auditory sequence Change in voice from male to female Changing the sound from one to another Have all been found disrupt short-term memory performance
- Lets return to domains of stm; It has been a debate whether the stm is domain-general or domain-specific Domain-general stm would be that all types of information are held in same storage Domain-specific is what I outlined earlier; there are at least 2 domains, in our case spatial and verbal It can also be a matter of sensory modality
- Spatial distractors have been far less researched when it comes to short-term memory but one study found that deviants do not affect spatial memory Spatial changes defined as change in color of boxes flanking the items-to-be-recalled did not affect memory If the distractor moved prior to target it had a small effect Lange concluded that short-term memory is built on spatial and verbal domains
- That leads us up to the current study; If short-term memroy is domain-general a spatial change would disrupt performance in both spatial and verbal STM tasks However, If STM is domain-specific a spatial shange should disrupt performance in the spatial task only.
- In both STM tasks we used 7 targets. In the spatial the subjects were presented with dots presented on the screen in a 5by5 matrix And in the verbal task 7 digits were presented I will present a schematic overview of the task later
- During encoding of the items-to-be-recalled subjects were exposed to a multisensory stream consisting of 10 distractors.
- The distractors were presented on one side of the body in the standard trials Whereas on the deviant trials the stimulation were changed to the other side of the body
- Here is an overview of the tasks The items to be recalled were resented for 400ms with 450ms intervalls The distractor stream consisted of sounds and vibrations with a duration of 250 ms with an intervall of 350ms. In botht tasks subjects had to click on the order of the items were presented
- Analysis were carried out on the proportion of recalled items in each trial type and these proprtions were analysed with a 2 by 2 ANOVA for repeated measures
- A spatial change in a multisensory stream affect both spatial and verbal STM; STM may not consist of spatial and verbal domains
- If we return to the predictive coding framework, In other tasks settings using event-related potentials it has been suggested that the mismatch negativity that is elicited by deviant stimuli is due to prediction errors, Behavioral data, seen in prolongation of response times to visual targets, have also been suggested to be due to that the deviant sound, for instance, is a violation of the cognitive systems prediction of upcoming events. Perhaps that the model have to updated leads to lesser activation of the memory traces of the items to be remembered?
- Although that spatial change did affect both tasks we don’t know whether this was due to the change in the sound sequence or the tactile sequence. It could be both that adds it. Next step would therefore be to manipulate one modality at a time. Another question is whether another change, maybe in the ISI between distractors, would affect both tasks also?