Abstract

Running span can be performed by either passively listening to memory items or actively updating the target set. Previous research suggests that the active updating process is demanding and time consuming and is favored at slow rates of presentation while the passive strategy is employed at fast rates. Two experiments examined the time course of recruitment of resources during task performance and its sensitivity to presentation rate. In Experiment 1, participants performed 1 of 3 serial recall tasks: running span, simple span, and modified span. The tasks were completed at the same time as a choice reaction time (RT; CRT) task and the RTs were used to index the resource demands of the memory task. Running span generated higher RT costs than simple span. The costs were present only for positions at and beyond the point in the sequence when the target memory set was changed, indicating a shift to a more cognitively demanding mode of updating. At these positions there was a generalized increase in RT costs that peaked 1,000 ms following item presentation. In Experiment 2 the resource demands of running span varied with presentation rate and a peak demand at 1,000 ms was again evident, but only with a slow presentation rate. In conjunction with strategy reports, these data establish that the process of active updating in running span is slow and cognitively demanding, making it difficult to use when presentation rates are fast.

Highlights

  • Running span can be performed by either passively listening to to-be-remembered items or actively updating the target set during presentation

  • Reaction time data reaction time (RT) from the concurrent continuous reaction time (CRT) task were analysed at three temporal levels, mirroring the investigation conducted in Experiment 1

  • At the fast presentation rate, the RT cost was minimal across all serial positions and did not increase during later positions in the list

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Running span can be performed by either passively listening to to-be-remembered items or actively updating the target set during presentation. Previous research suggests that the active updating process is demanding and time-consuming It is favored at relatively slow rates of presentation, while the passive strategy is more successful when applied at fast rates. A slow-paced running span exhibited a large overall resource demand in comparison with the serial recall tasks (Experiment 1) and fast-paced running span (Experiment 2) This demand was observed from the position in the list from which participants are presumed to start updating, suggesting a cognitive shift to a demanding mode of updating. A demand burst was found approximately 1000ms following item onset at these later positions These data establish that the process of active updating in running span task is slow and cognitively demanding and indicate that this limits its application during fast presentation rates

Objectives
Methods
Results
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