{"title":"The resolution of proactive interference in a novel visual working memory task: A behavioral and pupillometric study","authors":"Jamie Donenfeld, Erik Blaser, Zsuzsa Kaldy","doi":"10.3758/s13414-024-02888-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Proactive interference (PI) occurs when previously learned information impairs memory for more recently learned information. Most PI studies have employed verbal stimuli, while the role of PI in visual working memory (VWM) has had relatively little attention. In the verbal domain, Johansson and colleagues (2018) found that pupil diameter – a real-time neurophysiological index of cognitive effort – reflects the accumulation and resolution of PI. Here we use a novel, naturalistic paradigm to test the behavioral and pupillary correlates of PI resolution for <i>what-was-where</i> item-location bindings in VWM. Importantly, in our paradigm, trials (<i>PI</i> vs. <i>no-PI</i> condition) are mixed in a block, and participants are naïve to the condition until they are tested. This design sidesteps concerns about differences in encoding strategies or <i>generalized</i> effort differences between conditions. Across three experiments (<i>N</i> = 122 total) we assessed PI’s effect on VWM and whether PI resolution during memory retrieval is associated with greater cognitive effort (as indexed by the phasic, task-evoked pupil response). We found strong support for PI’s detrimental effect on VWM (even with our spatially distributed stimuli), but no consistent link between interference resolution and effort during memory retrieval (this, even though the pupil <i>was</i> a reliable indicator that higher-performing individuals tried harder during memory <i>encoding</i>). We speculate that when explicit strategies are minimized, and PI resolution relies primarily on implicit processing, the effect may not be sufficient to trigger a robust pupillometric response.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55433,"journal":{"name":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-024-02888-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Proactive interference (PI) occurs when previously learned information impairs memory for more recently learned information. Most PI studies have employed verbal stimuli, while the role of PI in visual working memory (VWM) has had relatively little attention. In the verbal domain, Johansson and colleagues (2018) found that pupil diameter – a real-time neurophysiological index of cognitive effort – reflects the accumulation and resolution of PI. Here we use a novel, naturalistic paradigm to test the behavioral and pupillary correlates of PI resolution for what-was-where item-location bindings in VWM. Importantly, in our paradigm, trials (PI vs. no-PI condition) are mixed in a block, and participants are naïve to the condition until they are tested. This design sidesteps concerns about differences in encoding strategies or generalized effort differences between conditions. Across three experiments (N = 122 total) we assessed PI’s effect on VWM and whether PI resolution during memory retrieval is associated with greater cognitive effort (as indexed by the phasic, task-evoked pupil response). We found strong support for PI’s detrimental effect on VWM (even with our spatially distributed stimuli), but no consistent link between interference resolution and effort during memory retrieval (this, even though the pupil was a reliable indicator that higher-performing individuals tried harder during memory encoding). We speculate that when explicit strategies are minimized, and PI resolution relies primarily on implicit processing, the effect may not be sufficient to trigger a robust pupillometric response.
主动干扰(PI)是指以前学习过的信息会影响对最近学习过的信息的记忆。大多数主动干扰研究都采用了言语刺激,而主动干扰在视觉工作记忆(VWM)中的作用则相对关注较少。在言语领域,Johansson 及其同事(2018 年)发现,瞳孔直径--认知努力的实时神经生理指标--反映了 PI 的积累和解析。在这里,我们使用一种新颖、自然的范式,测试了在 VWM 中 "是什么"-"在哪里 "项目-位置绑定的 PI 分辨率的行为和瞳孔相关性。重要的是,在我们的范式中,试验(PI 与无 PI 条件)混合在一个区块中,参与者在接受测试之前对试验条件一无所知。这种设计避免了对编码策略差异或不同条件下的普遍努力差异的担忧。通过三项实验(共 122 人),我们评估了 PI 对 VWM 的影响,以及在记忆检索过程中 PI 的解析是否与更大的认知努力相关(以阶段性、任务诱发的瞳孔反应为指标)。我们发现,PI 对 VWM 的不利影响得到了强有力的支持(即使我们使用的是空间分布式刺激),但干扰解决与记忆检索过程中的努力之间却没有一致的联系(尽管瞳孔是一个可靠的指标,表明表现较好的人在记忆编码过程中更加努力)。我们推测,当显性策略被最小化,而干扰解析主要依赖于隐性处理时,这种效应可能不足以引发强有力的瞳孔测量反应。
期刊介绍:
The journal Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics is an official journal of the Psychonomic Society. It spans all areas of research in sensory processes, perception, attention, and psychophysics. Most articles published are reports of experimental work; the journal also presents theoretical, integrative, and evaluative reviews. Commentary on issues of importance to researchers appears in a special section of the journal. Founded in 1966 as Perception & Psychophysics, the journal assumed its present name in 2009.