Current controversies in the cognitive science of short-term memory

Abstract

Short-term memory is critically implicated in most human cognitive capacities and has been the object of study for more than a century, yet many questions remain unsettled and new controversies have emerged. This paper provides an overview of some current debates within the field. These include (i) the issue of how many short-term memory systems there are, (ii) whether working memory is best understood as having domain-specific resources, (iii) how information is encoded in working memory, (iv) how sensory memory and working memory are related to attention, and (v) the relationship between short-term memory and consciousness.Memory, in the popular sense of the term, is associated with our capacity for recalling events minutes, hours, or years in the past. However, to use information we must represent or store it somewhere in our minds, even if only fleetingly. Hence some form of short-term memory is involved in capacities such as recognising an object [1], reading a text [2], or detecting changes in presented information [3].Despite more than a century of research into the different forms of short-term memory, a number of major unsettled questions remain. This brief review will examine some of the most pressing current debates, with particular focus on those relevant to theoretical debates in cognitive science. As a result, it will largely pass over other valuable discussions concerning, for example, memory and intelligence and issues relating to development and aging.

Rethinking creative intelligence: comparative psychology and the concept of creativity

“…It might be objected that similar deep-seated conceptual and definitional disagreements dog other contemporary projects of scientific and philosophical significance. In short-term memory research, for example, we find a proliferation of competing models (Shevlin 2020), while in philosophy fundamental disagreement is the norm in fields such as ethics and the study of consciousness. 9 Yet there are arguably important factors that distinguish these cases from that of creativity.…”

Sensory Recruitment in Visual Short-Term Memory: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Sensory Visual Cortex Interference Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

“…Yet, this significant heterogeneity raises some important issues that ought to be discussed and addressed. Given the active debate around the sensory recruitment hypothesis and the different interpretation of the current literature (Ester et al, 2016;Gayet, Paffen, & Van der Stigchel, 2018;Scimeca, et al, 2018;Shevlin, 2020;Teng, & Postle, 2021;Xu, 2018), it is fundamental to focus on reproducible practices. Specifically, future studies should focus on specific methodological and technical approaches, in such a manner that between study comparisons, both qualitatively and quantitatively, can be more accurately implemented (see Hardy, & Thompson, 1998;Higgins, & Thompson, 2002;Pitcher, et al, 2021).…”

“…The role of the sensory visual cortex during the encoding of information in VSTM is well studied (Awh & Jonides, 2001;D'Esposito, & Postle, 2015;de Graaf, Koivisto, Jacobs, & Sack, 2014;Kammer, 2007;Masse, Rosen, & Freedman, 2020;Serences, 2016;Shevlin, 2020;Xu, 2017Xu, , 2020, and evidence from studies employing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI; e.g., Bettencourt, & Xu, 2016), electroencephalography (EEG; e.g., Tcheslavski, Vasefi, & Gonen, 2018), brain stimulation (e.g., Lee, Kim, Jung, Chung, Song, Lee, & Yoo, 2016) together with non-human primate studies (e.g., Lu et al, 2018) have linked activity in the sensory visual cortex with successful encoding of visual information in VSTM. However, the role of the sensory visual cortex in VSTM maintenance remains uncertain.…”

“…Several previous attempts to reconcile disparate lines of evidence focused on qualitative reviews that lack a systematic approach of study identification, thus leaving any conclusions open to bias (Awh & Jonides, 2001;Christophel et al, 2017;D'Esposito, & Postle, 2015;Ester et al, 2016;Gayet, Paffen, & Van der Stigchel, 2018;Scimeca, Kiyonaga, & D'Esposito, 2018;Serences, 2016;Sreenivasen et al, 2014;Tapia & Beck, 2014;Teng, & Postle, 2021;van de Ven & Sack, 2013;Xu, 2017Xu, , 2018Xu, , 2020; see also Shevlin, 2020). Furthermore, most of these reviews relied heavily on neuroimaging data, which cannot provide causal information as to the question of whether the sensory visual cortex is indeed a necessary component of the network that underlies the successful short-term maintenance of visual information.…”

Sensory Recruitment in Visual Short-Term Memory: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Sensory Visual Cortex Interference Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

“…The role of the sensory visual cortex during the encoding of information in VSTM is well studied (Awh & Jonides, 2001;D'Esposito, & Postle, 2015;de Graaf et al, 2014;Kammer, 2007;Masse et al, 2020;Serences, 2016;Shevlin, 2020;Xu, 2017Xu, , 2020, and evidence from studies employing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI; e.g., Bettencourt, & Xu, 2016), electroencephalography (EEG; e.g., Tcheslavski et al, 2018), brain stimulation (e.g., Lee et al, 2016) together with non-human primate studies (e.g., Lu et al, 2018) have linked activity in the sensory visual cortex with successful encoding of visual information in VSTM. However, the role of the sensory visual cortex in VSTM maintenance remains controversial.…”