Abstract
In a series of experiments, participants were required to keep track of 1 or 2 working memory (WM) objects, having to update their values in 80% of the trials. Updating cost, defined as the difference between update and non-update trials, was larger when 2 objects were involved compared with when there was only 1 object was involved. This finding was interpreted as evidence that the updating process encompasses both objects in WM, even though only 1 of them is actually updated. This feature of WM updating is limited to objects defined as "updateable," throughout the trial sequence. The results are explained by the need to reprogram the phonological loop when updating or the need for desynchronization followed by resynchronization of WM contents.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
