Abstract

Echoing many of the themes of the seminal work of Atkinson and Shiffrin (The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2; 89–195, 1968), this paper uses the feature model (Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352, 1988; Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 18; 251–269, 1990; Neath & Nairne, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2; 429–441, 1995) to account for performance in working-memory tasks. The Brooks verbal and visuo-spatial matrix tasks were performed alone, with articulatory suppression, or with a spatial suppression task; the results produced the expected dissociation. We used approximate Bayesian computation techniques to fit the feature model to the data and showed that the similarity-based interference process implemented in the model accounted for the data patterns well. We then fit the model to data from Guérard and Tremblay (2008, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 556–569); the latter study produced a double dissociation while calling upon more typical order reconstruction tasks. Again, the model performed well. The findings show that a double dissociation can be modelled without appealing to separate systems for verbal and visuo-spatial processing. The latter findings are significant as the feature model had not been used to model this type of dissociation before; importantly, this is also the first time the model is quantitatively fit to data. For the demonstration provided here, modularity was unnecessary if two assumptions were made: (1) the main difference between spatial and verbal working-memory tasks is the features that are encoded; (2) secondary tasks selectively interfere with primary tasks to the extent that both tasks involve similar features. It is argued that a feature-based view is more parsimonious (see Morey, 2018, Psychological Bulletin, 144, 849–883) and offers flexibility in accounting for multiple benchmark effects in the field.

Highlights

  • Echoing many of the themes of the seminal work of Atkinson and Shiffrin (The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2; 89–195, 1968), this paper uses the feature model (Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352, 1988; Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 18; 251– 269, 1990; Neath & Nairne, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2; 429–441, 1995) to account for performance in working-memory tasks

  • Both articulatory and spatial suppression had a detrimental effect on the visuospatial version of the Brooks matrix task, while in the case of the verbal version, there appears to be a smaller effect of spatial suppression and a more detrimental impact of articulatory suppression

  • Since the FM is too complex for an analytic expression for the likelihood to be derived, we used a version of approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) to carry out model fits

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Echoing many of the themes of the seminal work of Atkinson and Shiffrin (The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2; 89–195, 1968), this paper uses the feature model (Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352, 1988; Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 18; 251– 269, 1990; Neath & Nairne, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2; 429–441, 1995) to account for performance in working-memory tasks. The findings show that a double dissociation can be modelled without appealing to separate systems for verbal and visuo-spatial processing. This paper presents new data examining interference effects in working-memory tasks for visuo-spatial and verbal material. The absence of domain-specific modules in our approach is worth highlighting, as the dominant view in the working-memory field proposes separate visuo-spatial and verbal processing structures The FM calls upon more than one ‘copy’ or ‘trace’ of the to-beremembered information; it is assumed that studying an item sets up a representation both in short-term and long-term memory, echoing similar proposals in Atkinson and Shiffrin. The emphasis in our work was to explain performance across verbal and visuo-spatial tasks, whereas in Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) the focus was more on what they called the auditory-verbal-linguistic shortterm store

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call