Pointing towards visuospatial patterns in short-term memory: Differential effects on familiarity- and recollection-based judgments.

Abstract

Previous studies have indicated that pointing toward to-be-remembered visuospatial patterns enhances short-term memory (STM) when the presentation of pointing and no-pointing trials is mixed (Chum et al., 2007; Dodd & Shumborski, 2009; Rossi-Arnaud et al., 2012). By contrast, when presentation is blocked, pointing has inhibitory effects on memory (Dodd & Shumborski, 2009; Rossi-Arnaud et al., 2012). In the present study, we demonstrated that pointing has different effects on short-term recollection- and familiarity-based judgments, depending on the length of the visuospatial patterns (5- vs. 7-item arrays) and the interval between the encoding and test phases (2 vs. 5 s). More specifically, pointing decreased the accuracy of recollection-based judgments for 5-item arrays, but not for 7-item arrays (this negative effect did not interact with interval length). In contrast, pointing facilitated familiarity-based judgments when the interval between the study and test phases was 5 s, but not when it was 2 s (this positive effect did not interact with pattern length). We proposed that the negative effects might be accounted for by the simultaneous recruitment of attention resources in the planning and execution of pointing movements. As a consequence, executive resources are diverted from the primary memory task, resulting in a less efficient use of attention-demanding retrieval strategies, like chunking. By contrast, the positive effects on familiarity judgments might reflect the unitization of the to-be-remembered items into a single shape.

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.…”

Pointing movements both impair and improve visuospatial working memory depending on serial position

“…2). Finally, the fact that the interaction between encoding condition and stimulus type was never significant demonstrates that pointing movements reduced the recall of both symmetrical and random arrays, consistent with the claim that movement might impair the use of chunking (axis-based) strategies Rossi-Arnaud et al, 2015).…”

“…First, symmetrical arrays were recalled better than random arrays, suggesting that participants were able to exploit the structural properties of vertical and horizontal patterns to facilitate their reconstruction from memory (Kemps, 2001;Pieroni et al, 2011;Rossi-Arnaud et al, 2006;. Second, for item memory, the main effect of the encoding condition approached the significance level with six-item arrays, confirming that, when instructions are blocked (i.e., when participants point to or passively view all the squares in a given trial), movement has an negative impact on spatial memory (Dodd & Shumborski, 2009;Rossi-Arnaud et al, 2015). An overall advantage for the passive-view condition was also obtained on order memory (again limited to six-item arrays), supporting the conclusion that, contrary to theoretical expectations (Dodd & Shumborski, 2009, p. 1246, pointing toward the target locations hinders the recall of their order of presentation (Spataro et al, 2015).…”

“…A direct consequence of this difference is that the probability of observing a significant memory advantage in the pointing condition should be a function of the specific type of retrieval task being employed. In free recall or recognition tests, in which the order of presentation of the studied locations can be ignored, memory performance should be largely dependent on the use of static, visual representations, resulting in a significant advantage of the passive-view condition (Dodd & Shumborski, 2009;Rossi-Arnaud et al, 2015). On the other hand, in serial recall tests, in which participants have to remember the order of presentation of the spatial items, memory performance should rely more heavily on the use of spatial path representations, leading to a significant advantage for the pointing condition.…”