Set-shifting as a component process of goal-directed problem-solving

In two experiments, we compared secondary task interference on Tower of London performance resulting from three different secondary tasks. The secondary tasks were designed to tap three different executive functions, namely set-shifting, memory monitoring and updating, and response inhibition. Previous work using individual differences methodology suggests that, all other things being equal, the response inhibition or memory tasks should result in the greatest interference. However, this was not found to be the case. Rather, in both experiments the set-shifting task resulted in significantly more interference on Tower of London performance than either of the other secondary tasks. Subsequent analyses suggest that the degree of interference could not be attributed to differences in secondary task difficulty. Results are interpreted in the light of related work which suggests that solving problems with non-transparent goal/subgoal structure requires flexible shifting between subgoals – a process that is held to be impaired by concurrent performance of a set-shifting task

Adaptive choice between articulatory rehearsal and attentional refreshing in verbal working memory

Because both articulatory rehearsal and attentional refreshing aid in the maintenance of verbal information in the short term, the present study evaluated the adaptive use of these mechanisms, using a complex span paradigm. In Experiment 1, the phonological similarity of memory list words and the attentional demand of concurrent processing were manipulated. As was predicted, a phonological similarity effect (PSE) appeared only when the concurrent task was attention demanding, thus impairing the use of refreshing and encouraging rehearsal. To verify that PSE indicates the use of rehearsal, participants were instructed to use one of the two mechanisms in Experiments 2 and 3. In accordance wih Experiment 1, the PSE was observed only under rehearsal. Thus, adults could adaptively choose between the two mechanisms. When remembering phonologically confusable materials, they prefer refreshing in order to reduce the impact of phonological characteristics. When available attention is reduced, they favor a less attention-demanding mechanism, rehearsal