Characteristics of visual interference with visuospatial working memory

Abstract

Recent discussions of visuospatial working memory have suggested that this subsystem may incorporate a visual buffer which holds visuospatial information relatively passively. Empirical investigations of visual interference with information held within a visuospatial subsystem have yielded somewhat equivocal results. Nonetheless, evidence from Logie (1986) has indicated that visuospatial processing can be disrupted by passive exposure to irrelevant visual material in a manner analogous to the disruption of serial verbal recall by exposure to irrelevant speech. This paper reports two experiments which explore whether such irrelevant visual input is disruptive to storage of imaginal information in a primarily spatial task--the Brooks spatial matrix task. Experiment 1 shows that exposure to irrelevant visual input during encoding selectively disrupts performance on a spatial, but not a verbal, version of the task. The extent of such disruption is shown to be independent of the visual complexity of the material, its similarity to the to-be-remembered information, or a change in state, with a static white square pattern yielding equivalent disruption to that produced by changing matrix patterns. The second experiment indicates that this pattern of effects is robust, and that such disruption is evident at an equivalent level when the visual material is present only during a 20-second retention interval. These results are interpreted as evidence of obligatory access of external visual material to a passive visual buffer. Implications for the nature of a visuospatial subsystem in working memory are discussed.

The effects of mental representation on performance in a navigation task

“…Thus, the spatial representation affected memory for the verbal material (i.e., the verbal representation). These findings provide strong support for the interdependence of the spatial and the verbal memory processes, as had been suggested by the work of McNamara and LeSueur (1989); the findings are not consistent with the notion that spatial and verbal WM processes are completely independent, as had been suggested by some previous investigations of WM (Friedman & Miyake, 2000;Shah & Miyake, 1996;Toms et al, 1994).…”

“…Shah and Miyake (1996) offered evidence to support the separation of spatial thinking and language processes in WM. Similarly, Toms, Morris, and Foley (1994) supported the separation of visuospatial and verbal WM processes. More recently, Friedman and Miyake (2000) argued that spatial and causal dimensions of mental representations are handled independently in different WM subsystems.…”

“…This experiment allowed us to determine whether the additional complexity of a 3-D, as opposed to a 2-D, spatial representation impedes performance on the navigation task. Because the verbal navigation instructions were identical in the two matrix conditions, differences between the single-matrix and the multi-matrix conditions should be restricted to the manual movement responses if verbal and spatial memory processes are independent of each other, as has been suggested by some studies of WM (Friedman & Miyake, 2000;Shah & Miyake, 1996;Toms et al, 1994). On the other hand, if verbal and spatial memory processes are interdependent, as was suggested by the work of McNamara and LeSueur (1989), differences between the single-and the multi-matrix conditions should be observed also in the oral repetition responses that preceded manual movement.…”

Out of mind, but not out of sight: Intentional control of visual memory

“…As for visual memory, under some circumstances behaviorallyirrelevant visual inputs seem to enjoy automatic, obligatory entry to visual memory, which allows behaviorally-irrelevant visual material to interfere with retrieval for task-relevant information. Such interference has been seen in visual memory for various spatial attributes, such as the distance separating dots (Hole, 1996) and the locations of cells in twodimensional matrices (Toms, Morris, & Foley, 1994;Washburn & Astur, 1998). However, other studies suggest that interference is not inevitable, but depends upon the stimulus dimension and task details (for example, Lalonde & Chaudhuri, 2002;Ostendorf, Finke, & Ploner, 2004).…”

Maintenance in Visuo-Spatial Working Memory

“…The use of irrelevant pictures has suggested that perceived inputs have direct and obligatory access to the system, causing detrimental effects on short-term recall and recognition for visuo-spatial material, analogous to the irrelevant speech effect on the phonological loop (Logie, 1986;Logie & Marchetti, 1991;Toms, Morris, & Foley, 1994). Quinn and McConnell explored the effects of passive visual interference with the dynamic visual noise (DVN) task, consisting of a matrix of dots turning black and white randomly, similar to television static, which the subject had to watch but otherwise ignore (McConnell & Quinn, 2000Quinn & McConnell, 1996;.…”