Shraddha Kaur, Dennis G Norris, Susan E Gathercole
{"title":"运行跨度中更新的时间过程。","authors":"Shraddha Kaur, Dennis G Norris, Susan E Gathercole","doi":"10.1037/xlm0000800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Running span can be performed by either passively listening to memory items or actively updating the target set. Previous research suggests that the active updating process is demanding and time consuming and is favored at slow rates of presentation while the passive strategy is employed at fast rates. Two experiments examined the time course of recruitment of resources during task performance and its sensitivity to presentation rate. In Experiment 1, participants performed 1 of 3 serial recall tasks: running span, simple span, and modified span. The tasks were completed at the same time as a choice reaction time (RT; CRT) task and the RTs were used to index the resource demands of the memory task. Running span generated higher RT costs than simple span. The costs were present only for positions at and beyond the point in the sequence when the target memory set was changed, indicating a shift to a more cognitively demanding mode of updating. At these positions there was a generalized increase in RT costs that peaked 1,000 ms following item presentation. In Experiment 2 the resource demands of running span varied with presentation rate and a peak demand at 1,000 ms was again evident, but only with a slow presentation rate. In conjunction with strategy reports, these data establish that the process of active updating in running span is slow and cognitively demanding, making it difficult to use when presentation rates are fast. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":504300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition","volume":" ","pages":"2397-2409"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7790168/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The time course of updating in running span.\",\"authors\":\"Shraddha Kaur, Dennis G Norris, Susan E Gathercole\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xlm0000800\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Running span can be performed by either passively listening to memory items or actively updating the target set. Previous research suggests that the active updating process is demanding and time consuming and is favored at slow rates of presentation while the passive strategy is employed at fast rates. Two experiments examined the time course of recruitment of resources during task performance and its sensitivity to presentation rate. In Experiment 1, participants performed 1 of 3 serial recall tasks: running span, simple span, and modified span. The tasks were completed at the same time as a choice reaction time (RT; CRT) task and the RTs were used to index the resource demands of the memory task. Running span generated higher RT costs than simple span. The costs were present only for positions at and beyond the point in the sequence when the target memory set was changed, indicating a shift to a more cognitively demanding mode of updating. At these positions there was a generalized increase in RT costs that peaked 1,000 ms following item presentation. In Experiment 2 the resource demands of running span varied with presentation rate and a peak demand at 1,000 ms was again evident, but only with a slow presentation rate. In conjunction with strategy reports, these data establish that the process of active updating in running span is slow and cognitively demanding, making it difficult to use when presentation rates are fast. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":504300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2397-2409\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7790168/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000800\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/12/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000800","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/12/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
运行span可以通过被动地侦听内存项或主动更新目标集来执行。先前的研究表明,主动更新过程要求高,耗时长,在慢速呈现时更受欢迎,而在快速呈现时则采用被动策略。两个实验考察了任务执行过程中资源获取的时间过程及其对呈现率的敏感性。在实验1中,被试执行3个连续记忆任务中的1个:运行记忆广度、简单记忆广度和修改记忆广度。这些任务是在选择反应时间(RT;CRT)任务和RTs用于索引内存任务的资源需求。运行跨度比简单跨度产生更高的RT成本。只有当目标记忆集发生改变时,在序列中的点或点以外的位置才会出现这种成本,这表明一种向认知要求更高的更新模式的转变。在这些位置,RT成本普遍增加,在项目呈现后1000毫秒达到峰值。在实验2中,运行跨度的资源需求随着呈现速率的变化而变化,在1,000 ms时的峰值需求同样明显,但仅在缓慢的呈现速率下。与策略报告相结合,这些数据表明,在运行跨度中主动更新的过程是缓慢的,并且需要认知能力,这使得在呈现速度快的情况下难以使用。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA,版权所有)。
Running span can be performed by either passively listening to memory items or actively updating the target set. Previous research suggests that the active updating process is demanding and time consuming and is favored at slow rates of presentation while the passive strategy is employed at fast rates. Two experiments examined the time course of recruitment of resources during task performance and its sensitivity to presentation rate. In Experiment 1, participants performed 1 of 3 serial recall tasks: running span, simple span, and modified span. The tasks were completed at the same time as a choice reaction time (RT; CRT) task and the RTs were used to index the resource demands of the memory task. Running span generated higher RT costs than simple span. The costs were present only for positions at and beyond the point in the sequence when the target memory set was changed, indicating a shift to a more cognitively demanding mode of updating. At these positions there was a generalized increase in RT costs that peaked 1,000 ms following item presentation. In Experiment 2 the resource demands of running span varied with presentation rate and a peak demand at 1,000 ms was again evident, but only with a slow presentation rate. In conjunction with strategy reports, these data establish that the process of active updating in running span is slow and cognitively demanding, making it difficult to use when presentation rates are fast. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).