Examining the influence of action on spatial working memory: The importance of selection

Abstract

We report three experiments that examine the influence of pointing-to relative to passively viewing an array of objects that participants are attempting to memorize. Recently, Chum, Bekkering, Dodd, and Pratt (2007) provided evidence that pointing to objects enhanced memory relative to passively viewing objects when pointing instruction was manipulated within trial (e.g., point to one array but passively view the other). We replicate this result but also demonstrate that when pointing instruction is blocked (e.g., participants point to or passively view all items in an array as opposed to pointing to some while passively viewing others), pointing to an array of objects actually decreases memory relative to passively viewing that array. Moreover, when pointing is manipulated within trial, the influence of action on working-memory performance appears to be attributable to an enhancement of processing of the pointed-to items as well as a subsequent inhibition of the passively viewed array. These results demonstrate that while action can enhance working memory under conditions where a subset of items is actively selected for additional processing, when selection is not a requirement (e.g., either point to everything or passively view everything), action decreases working-memory performance. Thus, the relationship between action and spatial working memory is complex and context dependent. These results are also discussed as they relate to other similar phenomena (e.g., retrieval-induced forgetting, Corsi Blocks test) in which selection during processing may be critical, and collectively these results provide important insight into spatial working memory and the factors that influence it.

Does pointing facilitate the recall of serial positions in visuospatial working memory?

“…Our data provide no evidence in support of this claim. Instead, we found that both item and order memory were significantly worse for pointed-to than for passively viewed arrays, replicating previous studies in which pointing instructions were manipulated between trials (Dodd and Shumborski 2009;Rossi-Arnaud et al 2012, 2015. Importantly, the negative effects of pointing movements were inversely related to array size, being largest for five-and six-square arrays and smallest (non significant) for eight-square arrays (see Chum et al 2007, for similar results).…”

“…Performance in a subsequent recognition task was significantly higher for pointed-to than for passively viewed arrays, leading Chum et al (2007) to speculate that pointing movements improved attention to the spatial arrangement of the items, promoting a stronger form of egocentric (body-based) encoding. At the same time, later studies demonstrated that pointing movements significantly decreased recognition accuracy when the instructions were manipulated between trials and participants pointed to or passively encoded all the items of studied arrays (Dodd and Shumborski 2009;Rossi-Arnaud et al 2012, 2015.…”

The functional role of working memory in the (re-)planning and execution of grasping movements.

“…Moreover, other factors, such as the mode of memory selection (Dodd & Shumborski, 2009), the precision requirements of the motor task , and whether the action decisions were freely chosen or instructed (Fleming, Mars, Gladwin, & Haggard, 2009), may also moderate interactions between motor and memory tasks. In investigating the neural correlates underlying the processes of changing one selected action plan for another, Fleming et al (2009) found differences between the neural responses related to the updating of free compared with instructed actions.…”

Getting the point: Tracing worked examples enhances learning

“…They suggested that pointing makes the feature of spatial arrangement more salient and hence improves the encoding of the arrays (cf. Dodd & Shumborski, 2009). …”