"How does processing affect storage in working memory tasks? Evidence for both domain-general and domain-specific effects": Correction to Jarrold et al. (2011).

Abstract

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms AbstractThree studies are presented that examine why the processing demands within working memory tasks lead to forgetting of the memoranda. In each, separate groups of adult participants were asked to carry out either verbal or nonverbal operations on exactly the same processing materials, while maintaining verbal storage items. The imposition of verbal processing tended to produce greater forgetting, despite the fact that verbal processing operations took no longer to complete than nonverbal processing operations.However, nonverbal processing did cause forgetting, relative to baseline control conditions, and evidence from the timing of individuals' processing responses suggested that individuals in both processing groups slowed their responses in order to 'refresh' the memoranda. Taken together the data suggest that processing has a domain-general effect on working memory performance by impeding refreshment of memoranda, but can also cause effects, which appear domain-specific, either by blocking rehearsal or as a result of interference. In addition, the balance of these effects depends on the structure of the working memory task employed. How does processing 3How does processing affect storage in working memory tasks? Evidence for both domain-general and domain-specific effects Complex span tasks are seen by many to be the 'gold standard' measure of working memory Jarrold & Towse, 2006). In complex span tasks, participants are asked to encode lists of memoranda (which are to be recalled later) while intermittently performing some kind of distracting processing activity (Case, Kurland, & Goldberg, 1982;Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). In general, complex span performance is inferior to that of simple span, which measures immediate recall of memoranda after their presentation in the absence of distracting processing activity (e.g., Duff & Logie, 2001;Hutton & Towse, 2001;La Pointe & Engle, 1990).Consequently, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the presence of the processing activity within a complex span task tends to cause forgetting of memoranda presented during the task.One reason for the substantial research interest in the complex span task is that performance on this measure is typically a strong correlate of measures of intelligence in adults (Bayliss, Jarrold, Gunn, & Baddeley, 2003;Kyllonen & Christal, 1990;Süß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002) and of academic achievement in children (Bayliss et al., 2003; Bull, Epsy, & Wiebe, 2008;Swanson, 2008). Furthermore, many would argue that complex span performance is a significantly stronger correlate of these abilities than is simple span (Conway, Cowan, Bunting, Therriault, & Minkoff, 2002; Engle, Tuholski, Luaghlin, & Conway, 1999; Oberauer, Schulze, Wilhelm, & Süß, 2005), indicating that the forgetting caused by the imposit...