Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval.

Abstract

Abstract:Two experiments examined how individual differences in working-memory capacity (WM) relate -to proactive interference (PI) susceptibility. We tested high and low WM-span participants in a PI-buildup task under singletask or dual-task ("load") conditions. In Experiment 1, a finger-tapping task was imposed during encoding anti retrieval of each list; in Experiment 2, tapping was required during encoding or retrieval. In both experiments, low spans showed greater PI than did high spans under no load, but groups showed equivalent PI under divided attention. Load increased PI only for high spans, suggesting they use attention at encoding and retrieval to combat N. In Experiment 2, only low spans showed a dual-task cost on List 1 memory, before PI built up. Results indicate a role for attentional processing, perhaps inhibitory in nature, at encoding and retrieval, and are discussed with respect to theories of WM and prefrontal cortex function. Article:The central executive component of working memory is now a focus of theoretical and empirical interest. Although its functions are still under-specified, they are most often characterized as "attentional"

What limits working memory capacity?

“…Differences in contextual distinctiveness have been shown to contribute to age differences in serial recall at the beginning (McCormack, Brown, Vousden, & Henson, 2000) and at the end of the life span (Maylor, Vousden, & Brown, 1999). On a more global level, more distinctive contexts also serve to distinguish the current memory set from those of previous trials, reducing proactive interference -this assumption could explain why WM capacity is correlated with the susceptibility to proactive interference (Kane & Engle, 2000).…”

Argument Strength and the Persuasiveness of Stories

“…Thus, individuals lower in working memory capacity may not be able to effectively suppress nonrelevant information while focusing on and deliberately elaborating the content of a presented persuasive message. Individuals low in working memory capacity are more vulnerable to interference effects, which results in weaker performance in secondary tasks compared with individuals high in working memory capacity (e.g., Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2000; Rosen & Engle, 1998). However, an extensive literature research did not yield any studies in which working memory capacity was empirically related to argument strength in the context of persuasion, neither for non-narrative nor for narrative texts.…”

Affective decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in 10th grade Chinese adolescent binge drinkers

“…Good working memory helps individuals keep competing considerations "online" (Kane & Engle, 2002), even whenfaced with other demands on cognitive resources (e.g., carrying on a conversation, considering peer's opinions). Without good working memory, multiple considerations are not as likely to be kept active or "online" for any decisions, and explicit memory retrieval is less effective (De Neys, Schaeken, & d'Ydewalle, 2005a, 2005bKane & Engle, 2000). Therefore, a smaller subset of learned effects (only the most spontaneously activated ones) is available to influence behavior.…”