Abstract

Working memory (WM) has been defined as the active maintenance and flexible updating of goal-relevant information in a form that has limited capacity and resists interference. Complex measures of WM recruit multiple subprocesses, making it difficult to isolate specific contributions of putatively independent subsystems. The present study was designed to determine whether neurophysiological indicators of proposed subprocesses of WM predict WM performance. We recruited 200 individuals defined by care-seeking status and measured neural responses using electroencephalography (EEG), while participants performed four WM tasks. We extracted spectral and time-domain EEG features from each task to quantify each of the hypothesized WM subprocesses: maintenance (storage of content), goal maintenance, and updating. We then used EEG measures of each subprocess as predictors of task performance to evaluate their contribution to WM. Significant predictors of WM capacity included contralateral delay activity and frontal theta, features typically associated with maintenance (storage of content) processes. In contrast, significant predictors of reaction time and its variability included contingent negative variation and the P3b, features typically associated with goal maintenance and updating. Broadly, these results suggest two principal dimensions that contribute to WM performance, tonic processes during maintenance contributing to capacity, and phasic processes during stimulus processing that contribute to response speed and variability. The analyses additionally highlight that reliability of features across tasks was greater (and comparable to that of WM performance) for features associated with stimulus processing (P3b and alpha), than with maintenance (gamma, theta and cross-frequency coupling).

Highlights

  • Working memory (WM) was described decades ago as the cognitive ability to store information briefly online after it is no longer available to our senses (Baddeley, 1986)

  • We found that storage sub-processes during maintenance were related to WM capacity, and were distinct from updating (P3b) and goal maintenance (CNV) processes, which were more strongly associated with reaction time measures

  • Across four tasks of variable demands, both long-term storage (LTM) and STM (CDA) mechanisms are recruited during maintenance and both contribute to capacity, which broadly supports the view that minimizes distinctions between these systems in WM maintenance

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Working memory (WM) was described decades ago as the cognitive ability to store information briefly online after it is no longer available to our senses (Baddeley, 1986). The importance of WM in cognitive neuroscience research is underscored by its extensive theoretical consideration in cognitive psychology (Baddeley, 2002; Cowan, 2008; Miller, 1956; Oberauer, Süß, Schulze, Wilhelm, & Wittmann, 2000), a multitude of validated assays (Luck & Vogel, 1997; Nee, Wager, & Jonides, 2007; Vogel & Machizawa, 2004), and an association with putative biological mechanisms (D'Esposito et al, 1998; Fuster & Alexander, 1971; Goldman-Rakic, 1995) that have suggested clear links between cognitive and neural function. WM impairments may comprise the most clinically salient cognitive disorders, having been reported across most neurological conditions, including traumatic brain injury (Alexander, Stuss, Picton, Shallice, & Gillingham, 2007; Stuss & Benson, 1984) and neuropsychiatric disorders, including anxiety (Brewin, Gregory, Lipton, & Burgess, 2010), depression (Joormann & Gotlib, 2008), substance abuse (Bechara & Martin, 2004), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Loo et al, 2007), schizophrenia (Gold et al, 2010), and bipolar disorder (Bearden, Hoffman, & Cannon, 2001).

Objectives
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