Naomi Langerock , Klaus Oberauer , Elena Throm , Evie Vergauwe
{"title":"The cognitive load effect in working memory: Refreshing the empirical landscape, removing outdated explanations","authors":"Naomi Langerock , Klaus Oberauer , Elena Throm , Evie Vergauwe","doi":"10.1016/j.jml.2024.104558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Maintaining information in working memory often competes with concurrent processing of other information. This is reflected in the cognitive load effect, referring to the observation that processing tasks with a higher cognitive load result in lower memory performance. The cognitive load effect has been shown on many occasions in complex span tasks, which combine maintenance of memory items with a processing demand interleaved in between the presentation of the memory items. Two models of working memory, the Time-Based Resource-Sharing (TBRS) model, and the Serial Order in a Box – Complex Span (SOB-CS) model, offer competing explanations for the cognitive load effect. Both lead to the prediction that a cognitive load effect should also be found in the Brown-Peterson task, in which the processing demand is inserted after the presentation of all of the memory items. Across three experiments, we show that (1) the cognitive load effect is consistently larger in the complex span task than in the Brown-Peterson task, and (2) the cognitive load effect is mostly absent in the Brown-Peterson task, with one exception. The current versions of the TBRS and SOB-CS models cannot account for these findings. We discuss what new assumptions are necessary for these models to explain our findings and consider alternative accounts explaining the current observations purely in terms of free time instead of cognitive load.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16493,"journal":{"name":"Journal of memory and language","volume":"140 ","pages":"Article 104558"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X24000615/pdfft?md5=4287a633ad536c32009940e6bbea34b4&pid=1-s2.0-S0749596X24000615-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of memory and language","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X24000615","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Maintaining information in working memory often competes with concurrent processing of other information. This is reflected in the cognitive load effect, referring to the observation that processing tasks with a higher cognitive load result in lower memory performance. The cognitive load effect has been shown on many occasions in complex span tasks, which combine maintenance of memory items with a processing demand interleaved in between the presentation of the memory items. Two models of working memory, the Time-Based Resource-Sharing (TBRS) model, and the Serial Order in a Box – Complex Span (SOB-CS) model, offer competing explanations for the cognitive load effect. Both lead to the prediction that a cognitive load effect should also be found in the Brown-Peterson task, in which the processing demand is inserted after the presentation of all of the memory items. Across three experiments, we show that (1) the cognitive load effect is consistently larger in the complex span task than in the Brown-Peterson task, and (2) the cognitive load effect is mostly absent in the Brown-Peterson task, with one exception. The current versions of the TBRS and SOB-CS models cannot account for these findings. We discuss what new assumptions are necessary for these models to explain our findings and consider alternative accounts explaining the current observations purely in terms of free time instead of cognitive load.
期刊介绍:
Articles in the Journal of Memory and Language contribute to the formulation of scientific issues and theories in the areas of memory, language comprehension and production, and cognitive processes. Special emphasis is given to research articles that provide new theoretical insights based on a carefully laid empirical foundation. The journal generally favors articles that provide multiple experiments. In addition, significant theoretical papers without new experimental findings may be published.
The Journal of Memory and Language is a valuable tool for cognitive scientists, including psychologists, linguists, and others interested in memory and learning, language, reading, and speech.
Research Areas include:
• Topics that illuminate aspects of memory or language processing
• Linguistics
• Neuropsychology.