Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Proactive Interference Does Not Meaningfully Distort Visual Working Memory Capacity Estimates in the Canonical Change Detection Task

By Po-Han Lin and Steven J. Luck

Abstract

The change detection task has become a standard method for estimating the storage capacity of visual working memory. Most researchers assume that this task isolates the properties of an active short-term storage system that can be dissociated from long-term memory systems. However, long-term memory storage may influence performance on this task. In particular, memory traces from previous trials may create proactive interference that sometimes leads to errors, thereby reducing estimated capacity. Consequently, the capacity of visual working memory may be higher than is usually thought, and correlations between capacity and other measures of cognition may reflect individual differences in proactive interference rather than individual differences in the capacity of the short-term storage system. Indeed, previous research has shown that change detection performance can be influenced by proactive interference under some conditions. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the canonical version of the change detection task – in which the to-be-remembered information consists of simple, briefly presented features – is influenced by proactive interference. Two experiments were conducted using methods that ordinarily produce substantial evidence of proactive interference, but no proactive interference was observed. Thus, the canonical version of the change detection task can be used to assess visual working memory capacity with no meaningful influence of proactive interference

Topics: Psychology
Publisher: Frontiers Research Foundation
OAI identifier: oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:3289109
Provided by: PubMed Central

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2007).Visualworkingmemoryrepresents a fixed number of items regardless of complexity.
  2. (2011). accepted: 07
  3. (2008). An assessment of fixed-capacity models of visual working memory.
  4. (1996). and inhibition in memory retrieval,”
  5. (2009). Bayesian t tests for acceptingandrejectingthenullhypothesis.
  6. (2004). differences in visual working memory capacity.
  7. (2005). Doubts about double dissociations between short- and long-term memory.
  8. (1988). Essence of Statistics.
  9. (2011). How to measure working memory capacity in the change detection paradigm.
  10. (1964). Information, acoustic confusion and memory span.
  11. (1975). Interference among memory traces.
  12. (2010). Mechanisms of working memory disruption by external interference.
  13. (2005). Neural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to working memory.
  14. (1974). On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory.
  15. (2011). On the existence of semantic working memory: evidence for direct semantic maintenance.
  16. (2005). Posterior parietal cortex activity predicts individual differences in visual short-term memory capacity.
  17. (1963). Proactive inhibition and item similarity in short-term memory.
  18. (1962). Proactive inhibition in short-termretentionof singleitems.
  19. (2006). Proactive interference and item similarity in working memory.
  20. (2008). Proactive interference from items previously stored in visual working memory.
  21. (2010). Quantity, not quality: the relationship between fluid intelligence and working memory capacity.
  22. (1981). Reading for meaning: the effectsof concurrentarticulation.Q.
  23. (2010). Reduced capacity but spared precision and maintenance of working memory representations in schizophrenia.
  24. (1971). Retroactive inhibition in free recall: Inaccessibility of information available in the memory store.
  25. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items.
  26. (2001). Storage of features, conjunctions, and objects in visual working memory.
  27. (2009). The 9 lives of short-term memory,”
  28. (2004). The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by information load and by number of objects.
  29. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions.
  30. (1982). The demise of short-term memory.
  31. (2008). The influence of similarity on visual working memory representations.
  32. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory.
  33. (1999). The role of interference in memory span.
  34. This is an open-access article distributed under thetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution Non Commercial License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited.
  35. (2001). Visual search remains efficient when visual working memory is full.
  36. (2004). Visual short-term memory is not improved by training.
  37. (2008). Visual short-term memory,”
  38. (2008). Visual working memory capacity and proactive interference.
  39. (2006). Working memory for conjunctions reliesonthemedialtemporallobe.J.
  40. (2001). Working memory span and the role of proactive interference.
  41. (1986). Working Memory.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.