Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Further evidence against decay in working memory


Oberauer, Klaus; Lewandowsky, Stephan (2014). Further evidence against decay in working memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 73:15-30.

Abstract

Theories assuming that representations in working memory decay unless maintained by rehearsal must predict that in any condition where rehearsal does not fully counteract decay, memory declines with a longer retention interval. Two experiments served to test this prediction in a complex-span paradigm in which encoding of letters for later recall alternated with series of spatial distractor operations. The opportunity for rehearsal was varied through cognitive load, the proportion of available time per distractor operation that was actually needed for that operation. The time needed for each operation within a series was measured independently. Retention interval was varied by increasing the number of operations at constant cognitive load. Memory declined with higher cognitive load, but was unchanged (Experiment 1) or improved (Experiment 2) with more distractor operations. Decay theories can explain the effect of cognitive load by assuming that at high load rehearsal fails to fully compensate decay, but then must predict a negative effect of the number of operations at higher cognitive load, contrary to the data. Simulations with an interference-based computational model of working memory, SOB-CS, show that the model explains the experimental findings.

Abstract

Theories assuming that representations in working memory decay unless maintained by rehearsal must predict that in any condition where rehearsal does not fully counteract decay, memory declines with a longer retention interval. Two experiments served to test this prediction in a complex-span paradigm in which encoding of letters for later recall alternated with series of spatial distractor operations. The opportunity for rehearsal was varied through cognitive load, the proportion of available time per distractor operation that was actually needed for that operation. The time needed for each operation within a series was measured independently. Retention interval was varied by increasing the number of operations at constant cognitive load. Memory declined with higher cognitive load, but was unchanged (Experiment 1) or improved (Experiment 2) with more distractor operations. Decay theories can explain the effect of cognitive load by assuming that at high load rehearsal fails to fully compensate decay, but then must predict a negative effect of the number of operations at higher cognitive load, contrary to the data. Simulations with an interference-based computational model of working memory, SOB-CS, show that the model explains the experimental findings.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
18 citations in Web of Science®
14 citations in Scopus®
17 citations in Microsoft Academic
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Psychology
Dewey Decimal Classification:150 Psychology
Language:English
Date:2014
Deposited On:04 Apr 2014 09:45
Last Modified:14 Feb 2018 21:10
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0749-596X
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.003

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

Get full-text in a library