Can children prioritize more valuable information in working memory? An exploration into the effects of motivation and memory load.

Atkinson, Amy L.; Waterman, Amanda H.; Allen, Richard

doi:10.1037/dev0000692

Cited by 36 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Note that explicit reward was used in both studies to probe prioritization, thus the main difference is in the implementation of a compelling cover story that engages children in the task. Taken together, these findings support the idea that employing engaging and the age‐appropriate tasks is crucial (Atkinson et al, ; Light, Buckingham, & Robbins, ).…”

Section: Mnemonic Discrimination Developmentsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…It has been found that an age‐appropriate cover story may sufficiently motivate children in other cognitive domains. For examples, one study examined the impact of the use of reward with an age‐appropriate cover story (combatting an alien invasion) to motivate children aged 7–10 in a working memory task (Atkinson, Waterman, & Allen, ). Children showed higher accuracy for the valued items, suggesting that they are able to engage in executive control in order to prioritize high‐reward items when sufficiently motivated to do so.…”

Section: Mnemonic Discrimination Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gain‐Loss Framing Enhances Mnemonic Discrimination in Preschoolers

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Episodic memory relies on discriminating among similar elements of episodes. Mnemonic discrimination is relatively poor at age 4, and then improves markedly. We investigated whether motivation to encode items with fine-grain resolution would change this picture of development, using an engaging computer-administered memory task in which a bird ate items that made her healthier (gain frame), sicker (loss frame), or led to no change (control condition). Using gain-loss framing led to enhanced mnemonic discrimination in 4-and 5-year-olds, but did not affect older children or adults. Despite this differential improvement, age-related differences persisted. An additional finding was that loss-framing led to greater mnemonic discrimination than gain-framing across age groups. Motivation only partially accounts for the improvement in mnemonic discrimination.

show abstract

Section: Mnemonic Discrimination Developmentsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Mnemonic Discrimination Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gain‐Loss Framing Enhances Mnemonic Discrimination in Preschoolers

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that explicit reward was used in both studies to probe prioritization, thus the main difference is in the implementation of a compelling cover story that engages children in the task. Taken together, these findings support the idea that employing engaging and the age-appropriate tasks is crucial (Atkinson et al, 2019;Light, Buckingham, & Robbins, 1979).…”

Section: Mnemonic Discrimination Developmentsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…It has been found that an age-appropriate cover story may sufficiently motivate children in other cognitive domains. For examples, one study examined the impact of the use of reward with an ageappropriate cover story (combatting an alien invasion) to motivate children aged 7-10 in a working memory task (Atkinson, Waterman, & Allen, 2019). Children showed higher accuracy for the valued items, suggesting that they are able to engage in executive control in order to prioritize high-reward items when sufficiently motivated to do so.…”

Section: Mnemonic Discrimination Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gain-loss framing enhances mnemonic discrimination in preschoolers

Ngo¹,

Newcombe²,

Olson³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Episodic memory relies on discriminating among similar elements of episodes. Mnemonic discrimination is relatively poor at age 4, and then improves markedly. We investigated whether motivation to encode items with fine grain resolution would change this picture of development, using an engaging computer-administered memory task in which a bird ate items that made the bird healthier (gain frame), sicker (loss frame), or led to no change (control condition). Using gain-loss framing led to enhanced mnemonic discrimination in 4- and 5-year-olds, but did not affect older children or adults. Despite this differential improvement, age-related differences persisted. An additional finding was that loss framing led to greater mnemonic discrimination than gain framing across age groups. Motivation only partially accounts for development in mnemonic discrimination.

show abstract

“…Figure 7 illustrates the effect of cognitive load on the comparison between instructions emphasizing primacy or recency. We have also observed that children 7-10 years of age are able to prioritize within visual working memory, at least when sufficiently motivated to do so, though such effects appear to be somewhat smaller than those observed in adults (Atkinson, Waterman, & Allen, 2019).…”

Section: Prioritization Effectsmentioning

confidence: 57%

Attention and binding in visual working memory: Two forms of attention and two kinds of buffer storage

Hitch

Allen

Baddeley

2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review our research on the episodic buffer in the multicomponent model of working memory (Baddeley, 2000), making explicit the influence of Anne Treisman's work on the way our research has developed. The crucial linking theme concerns binding, whereby the individual features of an episode are combined as integrated representations. We summarize a series of experiments on visual working memory that investigated the retention of feature bindings and individual features. The effects of cognitive load, perceptual distraction, prioritization, serial position, and their interactions form a coherent pattern. We interpret our findings as demonstrating contrasting roles of externally driven and internally driven attentional processes, as well as a distinction between visual buffer storage and the focus of attention. Our account has strong links with Treisman's concept of focused attention and aligns with a number of contemporary approaches to visual working memory. Keywords Attention. Working memory. Visual working memory Over 60 years have passed since Broadbent (1958) first presented a model linking short-term memory and attention. However, early investigation tended to concentrate on the auditory-verbal domain whereas in the visual domain, attention and short-term memory were typically studied separately. One development in bringing these perspectives together was the use of perceptually based change detection methods to investigate the capacity of visual working memory (Luck & Vogel, 1997). A parallel development was growing awareness of working memory among researchers studying attention in visual perception (e.g.

show abstract

Can children prioritize more valuable information in working memory? An exploration into the effects of motivation and memory load.

Abstract: This is a repository copy of Can children prioritize more valuable information in working memory? An exploration into the effects of motivation and memory load.

Cited by 36 publications

References 62 publications

Gain‐Loss Framing Enhances Mnemonic Discrimination in Preschoolers

Gain‐Loss Framing Enhances Mnemonic Discrimination in Preschoolers

Gain-loss framing enhances mnemonic discrimination in preschoolers

Attention and binding in visual working memory: Two forms of attention and two kinds of buffer storage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About