Interference between maintenance and processing in working memory: The effect of item–distractor similarity in complex span.

Abstract

Four experiments examined the effect of phonological similarity between items and distractors on complex span performance. Item-distractor similarity benefited serial recall when distractors followed the items they were similar to, but not when distractors preceded the items they were similar to. These findings are predicted by C-SOB (contextual serial order in a box), a computational model of complex span. The model assumes that distractors are involuntarily encoded into memory, being associated to the preceding item's list position. Distractors interfere with items by superposition of distributed representations that are associated to the same position. Superposition distorts item memory; this distortion is less severe when the distractor is similar to the item. Further support for the assumption that distractors are encoded at the position of the preceding item comes from the finding that intrusions of distractors at recall tended to come from the position of the target item. In addition, intruding distractors tend to replace items to which they are similar, showing that lack of distinctiveness also contributes to interference.

Overwriting and intrusion in short-term memory

“…What is suggested by the present study, however, is that intrusion into memory may be able to produce interference without requiring overwriting. As in previous studies (e.g., Oberauer et al, 2012a). the interference effects found in the present study cannot be explained by resource-sharing or time-sharing accounts of interference.…”

“…In this case, we have intrusion without loss of the original stimulus representation. Note that this differs from interference due to lack of distinctiveness (e.g., Oberauer et al, 2012a) in that interference effects can be produced by distractors that are substantially different from information held in memory. This would seem to make it unlikely that subjects are confusing memory items and distractors.…”

“…Notably, Oberauer et al (2012a) point out that such effects are not predicted by the first two accounts of interference described above, because these accounts predict that the magnitude of interference is determined by the amount of the shared resource required by the concurrent processing task, or the amount of time dedicated to the concurrent processing task (e.g., Barrouillet et al, 2011). and would apply equally to similar and dissimilar distractor items.…”

A test of interference versus decay in working memory: Varying distraction within lists in a complex span task

“…This assumption receives additional support from previous research. Oberauer , Farrell, Jarrold, Pasiecznik, & Greaves (2012) found that when intrusions from distractors into recall were encouraged by using pseudowords as both memoranda and distractors, intruding distractors tended to be reported in the serial position of the list item they replaced (i.e., distractor intrusions peaked at lag 0).…”

Control of information in working memory: Encoding and removal of distractors in the complex-span paradigm

“…In this model, the limited capacity of working memory arises from interference between distributed representations. There are two kinds of interference, interference by confusion and interference by superposition (Oberauer, Farrell, Jarrold, Pasiecznik, & Greaves, 2012). Interference by confusion means that the target item is confused with another element of the task vocabulary.…”