Evie Vergauwe

Time and cognitive load in working memory.

According to the time-based resource-sharing model (P. Barrouillet, S. Bernardin, & V. Camos, 2004), the cognitive load a given task involves is a function of the proportion of time during which it captures attention, thus impeding other attention-demanding processes. Accordingly, the present study demonstrates that the disruptive effect on concurrent maintenance of memory retrievals and response selections increases with their duration. Moreover, the effect on recall performance of concurrent activities does not go beyond their duration insofar as the processes are attention demanding. Finally, these effects are not modality specific, as spatial processing was found to disrupt verbal maintenance. These results suggest a sequential and time-based function of working memory in which processing and storage rely on a single and general purpose attentional resource needed to run executive processes devoted to constructing, maintaining, and modifying ephemeral representations.

Working Memory Span Development: A Time-Based Resource-Sharing Model Account.

The time-based resource-sharing model (P. Barrouillet, S. Bernardin, & V. Camos, 2004) assumes that during complex working memory span tasks, attention is frequently and surreptitiously switched from processing to reactivate decaying memory traces before their complete loss. Three experiments involving children from 5 to 14 years of age investigated the role of this reactivation process in developmental differences in working memory spans. Though preschoolers seem to adopt a serial control without any attempt to refresh stored items when engaged in processing, the reactivation process is efficient from age 7 onward and increases in efficiency until late adolescence, underpinning a sizable part of developmental differences.

Do Mental Processes Share a Domain-General Resource?

What determines success and failure in dual-task situations? Many theories propose that the extent to which two activities can be performed concurrently depends on the nature of the information involved in the activities. In particular, verbal and visuospatial activities are thought to be fueled by distinct resources, so that interference occurs between two verbal activities or two visuospatial activities, but little or no interference occurs between verbal and visuospatial activities. The current study examined trade-offs in four dual-task situations in which participants maintained verbal or visuospatial information while concurrently processing either verbal or visuospatial information. We manipulated the cognitive load of concurrent processing and assessed recall performance in each condition. Results revealed that both verbal and visuospatial recall performance decreased as a direct function of increasing cognitive load, regardless of the nature of the information concurrently processed. The observed trade-offs suggest strongly that verbal and visuospatial activities compete for a common domain-general pool of resources.

Visual and Spatial Working Memory Are Not That Dissociated After All: A Time-Based Resource-Sharing Account

Examinations of interference between visual and spatial materials in working memory have suggested domain- and process-based fractionations of visuo-spatial working memory. The present study examined the role of central time-based resource sharing in visuo-spatial working memory and assessed its role in obtained interference patterns. Visual and spatial storage were combined with both visual and spatial on-line processing components in computer-paced working memory span tasks (Experiment 1) and in a selective interference paradigm (Experiment 2). The cognitive load of the processing components was manipulated to investigate its impact on concurrent maintenance for both within-domain and between-domain combinations of processing and storage components. In contrast to both domain- and process-based fractionations of visuo-spatial working memory, the results revealed that recall performance was determined by the cognitive load induced by the processing of items, rather than by the domain to which those items pertained. These findings are interpreted as evidence for a time-based resource-sharing mechanism in visuo-spatial working memory.

The Impact of Storage on Processing: How Is Information Maintained in Working Memory?.

Working memory is typically defined as a system devoted to the simultaneous maintenance and processing of information. However, the interplay between these 2 functions is still a matter of debate in the literature, with views ranging from complete independence to complete dependence. The time-based resource-sharing model assumes that a central bottleneck constrains the 2 functions to alternate in such a way that maintenance activities postpone concurrent processing, with each additional piece of information to be maintained resulting in an additional postponement. Using different kinds of memoranda, we examined in a series of 7 experiments the effect of increasing memory load on different processing tasks. The results reveal that, insofar as attention is needed for maintenance, processing times linearly increase at a rate of about 50 ms per verbal or visuospatial memory item, suggesting a very fast refresh rate in working memory. Our results also show an asymmetry between verbal and spatial information, in that spatial information can solely rely on attention for its maintenance while verbal information can also rely on a domain-specific maintenance mechanism independent from attention. The implications for the functioning of working memory are discussed, with a specific focus on how information is maintained in working memory.

Further Evidence for Temporal Decay in Working Memory: Reply to Lewandowsky and Oberauer (2009).

The sources of forgetting in working memory (WM) are a matter of intense debate: Is there a time-related decay of memory traces, or is forgetting uniquely due to representation-based interference? In a previous study, we claimed to have provided evidence supporting the temporal decay hypothesis (S. Portrat, P. Barrouillet, & V. Camos, 2008). However, reanalyzing our data, S. Lewandowsky and K. Oberauer (2009) demonstrated that they do not provide compelling evidence for temporal decay and suggested a class of alternative models favoring a representation-based interference account. In this article, we develop from the most recent proposals made by Lewandowsky and Oberauer 2 of the most plausible extensions of these alternative models. We show that neither of these extensions can account for recent findings related to between-domain WM performance and that both lead to predictions that are contradicted by new empirical evidence. Finally, we show that recent studies that have been claimed to rule out the temporal decay hypothesis do not resist close scrutiny. We conclude that the time-based resource-sharing model remains the most parsimonious way to account for forgetting and restoration of memory traces in WM.

Attending to items in working memory: evidence that refreshing and memory search are closely related

Refreshing refers to the use of attention to reactivate items in working memory (WM). In the present study, we aimed to test the hypothesis that refreshing is closely related to memory search. The assumption is that refreshing and memory search both rely on a basic covert memory process that quickly retrieves the memory items into the focus of attention, thereby reactivating the information (Cowan, 1992; Vergauwe & Cowan, 2014). Consistent with the idea that people use their attention to prevent loss from WM, previous research has shown that increasing the proportion of time during which attention is occupied by concurrent processing, thereby preventing refreshing, results in poorer recall performance in complex span tasks (Barrouillet, Portrat, & Camos, Psychological Review, 118, 175–192, 2011). Here, we tested whether recall performance is differentially affected by prolonged attentional capture caused by memory search. If memory search and refreshing both rely on retrieval from WM, then prolonged attentional capture caused by memory search should not lead to forgetting, because memory items are assumed to be reactivated during memory search, in the same way that they would be if that period of time were used for refreshing. Consistent with this idea, prolonged attentional capture had a disruptive effect when it was caused by the need to retrieve knowledge from long-term memory, but not when it was caused by the need to search through the content of WM. The present results support the idea that refreshing operates through a process of retrieval of information into the focus of attention.

A common short-term memory retrieval rate may describe many cognitive procedures

We examine the relationship between response speed and the number of items in short-term memory (STM) in four different paradigms and find evidence for a similar high-speed processing rate of about 25–30 items per second (∼35–40 ms/item). We propose that the similarity of the processing rates across paradigms reflects the operation of a very basic covert memory process, high-speed retrieval, that is involved in both the search for information in STM and the reactivation or refreshing of information that keeps it in STM. We link this process to a specific pattern of rhythmic, repetitive neural activity in the brain (gamma oscillations). This proposal generates ideas for research and calls for an integrative approach that combines neuroscientific measures with behavioral cognitive techniques.

Decay theory of immediate memory: From Brown (1958) to today (2014).

This work takes a historical approach to discussing Browns (1958) paper, “Some Tests of the Decay Theory of Immediate Memory”. This work was and continues to be extremely influential in the field of forgetting over the short term. Its primary importance is in establishing a theoretical basis to consider a process of fundamental importance: memory decay. Brown (1958) established that time-based explanations of forgetting can account for both memory capacity and forgetting of information over short periods of time. We discuss this view both in the context of the intellectual climate at the time of the papers publication and in the context of the modern intellectual climate. The overarching theme we observe is that decay is as controversial now as it was in the 1950s and 1960s.

Evidence for a central pool of general resources in working memory

The present study addresses the existence of a central pool of domain-general resources in working memory. For this purpose, we examined interference between processing and storage activities involving information pertaining to different domain (verbal vs. visuo-spatial) while explicitly minimising representation-based interference at the peripheral level of working memory. Experiment 1 required maintenance of auditorily presented letters for further oral recall while concurrently judging visually presented spatial configurations by pressing keys. Experiment 2 required maintenance of visually presented random locations for further manual recall while concurrently judging auditorily presented words by giving oral responses. In both experiments, the cognitive load of processing was manipulated, a manipulation that clearly affected recall performance. This suggests strongly that working memory comprises a pool of domain-general attentional resources at the central level.