Attentional Refreshing in Working Memory and Its Interplay with Long-term Memory: A Behavioral and EEG Study.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Maximilien Labaronne, Anne Caclin, Gaën Plancher
{"title":"Attentional Refreshing in Working Memory and Its Interplay with Long-term Memory: A Behavioral and EEG Study.","authors":"Maximilien Labaronne, Anne Caclin, Gaën Plancher","doi":"10.1162/jocn_a_02267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite the growing interest in the study of attentional refreshing, the functioning of this working memory maintenance mechanism, including its cerebral underpinnings, is still debated. In particular, it remains unclear whether refreshing promotes long-term memory and whether it, in return, depends on long-term memory content to operate. Here, we used direct maintenance instructions and measured brain activity to investigate working memory maintenance with two objectives: (1) test if different behavioral and oscillatory patterns could be observed when participants were instructed to use attentional refreshing versus verbal rehearsal, and (2) observe whether and how refreshing is modulated when maintaining novel (pseudowords) versus familiar (words) memoranda. We conducted an EEG experiment using a modified Brown-Peterson task, in which we manipulated the type of maintenance engaged through explicit instructions (verbal rehearsal vs. refreshing), the type of memoranda (words vs. pseudowords), and the memory load (2 vs. 6). Using scalp EEG, we measured both neural oscillations during working memory maintenance and ERPs during the concurrent parity judgment task. For words, we showed that verbal rehearsal benefited more short-term recall whereas refreshing benefited more delayed recall. In keeping with these behavioral differences between maintenance instructions, frontal-midline theta power increased with memory load only when using verbal rehearsal, whereas occipito-parietal alpha desynchronization was larger with refreshing than verbal rehearsal. When maintaining pseudowords, verbal rehearsal also benefitted short-term recall more than refreshing. However, no long-term memory benefit of refreshing was observed for pseudowords, and oscillatory activity was not different under the two maintenance instructions. Our results provide new evidence supporting the independence between attentional refreshing and verbal rehearsal, and bring new insight into refreshing functioning. We discuss the possible interpretations of these results and the implications for the attentional refreshing literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":51081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_02267","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the growing interest in the study of attentional refreshing, the functioning of this working memory maintenance mechanism, including its cerebral underpinnings, is still debated. In particular, it remains unclear whether refreshing promotes long-term memory and whether it, in return, depends on long-term memory content to operate. Here, we used direct maintenance instructions and measured brain activity to investigate working memory maintenance with two objectives: (1) test if different behavioral and oscillatory patterns could be observed when participants were instructed to use attentional refreshing versus verbal rehearsal, and (2) observe whether and how refreshing is modulated when maintaining novel (pseudowords) versus familiar (words) memoranda. We conducted an EEG experiment using a modified Brown-Peterson task, in which we manipulated the type of maintenance engaged through explicit instructions (verbal rehearsal vs. refreshing), the type of memoranda (words vs. pseudowords), and the memory load (2 vs. 6). Using scalp EEG, we measured both neural oscillations during working memory maintenance and ERPs during the concurrent parity judgment task. For words, we showed that verbal rehearsal benefited more short-term recall whereas refreshing benefited more delayed recall. In keeping with these behavioral differences between maintenance instructions, frontal-midline theta power increased with memory load only when using verbal rehearsal, whereas occipito-parietal alpha desynchronization was larger with refreshing than verbal rehearsal. When maintaining pseudowords, verbal rehearsal also benefitted short-term recall more than refreshing. However, no long-term memory benefit of refreshing was observed for pseudowords, and oscillatory activity was not different under the two maintenance instructions. Our results provide new evidence supporting the independence between attentional refreshing and verbal rehearsal, and bring new insight into refreshing functioning. We discuss the possible interpretations of these results and the implications for the attentional refreshing literature.

工作记忆中的注意刷新及其与长时记忆的相互作用:行为和脑电图研究
尽管人们对注意力提神的研究越来越感兴趣,但这种工作记忆维持机制的功能,包括其大脑基础,仍然存在争议。尤其是,刷新是否会促进长期记忆,以及反过来刷新是否依赖于长期记忆内容才能发挥作用,这些问题仍不清楚。在这里,我们使用直接的保持指令和测量大脑活动来研究工作记忆的保持,目的有两个:(1)测试当参与者被指示使用注意刷新与言语排练时,是否能观察到不同的行为和振荡模式;(2)观察在保持新颖(假词)与熟悉(单词)记忆时,刷新是否以及如何被调节。我们使用改良的布朗-彼得森任务进行了一项脑电图实验,在该实验中,我们操纵了通过明确指令进行的保持类型(口头预演与刷新)、记忆类型(单词与伪单词)以及记忆负荷(2 与 6)。我们使用头皮脑电图测量了工作记忆维持过程中的神经振荡和同时进行的奇偶性判断任务中的ERPs。结果表明,对于单词,言语预演更有利于短期记忆,而复习则更有利于延迟记忆。与维持指令之间的这些行为差异相一致的是,只有在使用口头演练时,额叶-中线θ功率才会随着记忆负荷的增加而增加,而枕顶叶α不同步在刷新时比口头演练时更大。在保持伪词时,口头演练也比刷新更有利于短期记忆。然而,对于伪词,没有观察到刷新对长期记忆的益处,而且振荡活动在两种维持指令下没有差异。我们的研究结果提供了支持注意刷新和言语预演之间独立性的新证据,并为刷新功能带来了新的见解。我们将讨论这些结果的可能解释以及对注意刷新文献的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.10%
发文量
151
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience investigates brain–behavior interaction and promotes lively interchange among the mind sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信