Chang Mao Chao, Chenlingxi Xu, Vanessa Loaiza, Nathan S Rose
{"title":"《快报》:潜伏的工作记忆项目是从长期记忆中提取出来的吗?","authors":"Chang Mao Chao, Chenlingxi Xu, Vanessa Loaiza, Nathan S Rose","doi":"10.1177/17470218231217723","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Switching one's focus of attention between to-be-remembered items in working memory (WM) is critical for cognition, but the mechanisms by which this is accomplished are unclear. A long-term memory (LTM) account suggests that switching attention away from an item, and passively retaining and reactivating such \"latent\" items back into the focus of attention involves episodic LTM retrieval processes, even for delays of only a few seconds. We tested this hypothesis using a two-item, double-retrocue WM task that requires participants to switch attention away from and reactivate items followed by subsequent LTM tests for reactivated items from the initial WM task (vs. continuously retained or untested control items). We compared performance on these tests between older adults (a population with LTM deficits) and young adults with either full (Experiment 1) or divided (Experiment 2) attention during the WM delay periods. The effects of reactivating latent items, as well as ageing and divided attention, had significant effects on WM performance, but did not interact with or systematically affect subsequent LTM for reactivated versus control items on item-, location-, or associative-recognition memory judgements made with either high or low confidence. Experiment 3 confirmed that these effects did not depend on whether or not young participants were warned about the subsequent LTM tests before performing the WM task. These dissociations between WM and LTM are inconsistent with the LTM account of latent WM; they are more consistent with the dynamic processing model of WM (<i>Current Directions in Psychological Science</i>).</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are latent working memory items retrieved from long-term memory?\",\"authors\":\"Chang Mao Chao, Chenlingxi Xu, Vanessa Loaiza, Nathan S Rose\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470218231217723\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Switching one's focus of attention between to-be-remembered items in working memory (WM) is critical for cognition, but the mechanisms by which this is accomplished are unclear. A long-term memory (LTM) account suggests that switching attention away from an item, and passively retaining and reactivating such \\\"latent\\\" items back into the focus of attention involves episodic LTM retrieval processes, even for delays of only a few seconds. We tested this hypothesis using a two-item, double-retrocue WM task that requires participants to switch attention away from and reactivate items followed by subsequent LTM tests for reactivated items from the initial WM task (vs. continuously retained or untested control items). We compared performance on these tests between older adults (a population with LTM deficits) and young adults with either full (Experiment 1) or divided (Experiment 2) attention during the WM delay periods. The effects of reactivating latent items, as well as ageing and divided attention, had significant effects on WM performance, but did not interact with or systematically affect subsequent LTM for reactivated versus control items on item-, location-, or associative-recognition memory judgements made with either high or low confidence. Experiment 3 confirmed that these effects did not depend on whether or not young participants were warned about the subsequent LTM tests before performing the WM task. These dissociations between WM and LTM are inconsistent with the LTM account of latent WM; they are more consistent with the dynamic processing model of WM (<i>Current Directions in Psychological Science</i>).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231217723\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231217723","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在工作记忆(WM)中,将一个人的注意力焦点在待记住的信息之间切换对认知至关重要,但这一过程的实现机制尚不清楚。一些模型表明,在焦点注意之外被动地保留“潜在”信息并将其返回焦点涉及到情景长期记忆(LTM)检索过程,即使只有几秒钟的延迟。我们检验了这一假设,方法是检查参与者在两项双回溯WM任务中的表现(将参与者的注意力引导到每次试验中第一项和第二项测试的项目上),以及对最初WM任务中的项目进行后续LTM测试。我们比较了老年人(LTM缺陷人群)和年轻人在WM延迟期的表现,他们的注意力是完全的(实验1)或分散的(实验2)。回溯、老化和分散注意都对记忆记忆的表现有显著影响,但对高置信度或低置信度下的项目、位置或联想记忆判断没有交互作用或系统地影响后续记忆记忆的表现。WM和LTM之间的这些分离表明,LTM检索过程不涉及在焦点注意之外保留和重新激活一个项目,这已经显示了潜在WM的神经成像、神经刺激和神经计算模型证据;相反,研究结果与WM的动态加工模型一致(Rose, 2020, Current Directions in Psychological Science)。
Are latent working memory items retrieved from long-term memory?
Switching one's focus of attention between to-be-remembered items in working memory (WM) is critical for cognition, but the mechanisms by which this is accomplished are unclear. A long-term memory (LTM) account suggests that switching attention away from an item, and passively retaining and reactivating such "latent" items back into the focus of attention involves episodic LTM retrieval processes, even for delays of only a few seconds. We tested this hypothesis using a two-item, double-retrocue WM task that requires participants to switch attention away from and reactivate items followed by subsequent LTM tests for reactivated items from the initial WM task (vs. continuously retained or untested control items). We compared performance on these tests between older adults (a population with LTM deficits) and young adults with either full (Experiment 1) or divided (Experiment 2) attention during the WM delay periods. The effects of reactivating latent items, as well as ageing and divided attention, had significant effects on WM performance, but did not interact with or systematically affect subsequent LTM for reactivated versus control items on item-, location-, or associative-recognition memory judgements made with either high or low confidence. Experiment 3 confirmed that these effects did not depend on whether or not young participants were warned about the subsequent LTM tests before performing the WM task. These dissociations between WM and LTM are inconsistent with the LTM account of latent WM; they are more consistent with the dynamic processing model of WM (Current Directions in Psychological Science).
期刊介绍:
Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling.
QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form.
The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.