Does value-based prioritization at working memory enhance long-term memory?

Research has demonstrated that individuals can direct their attention to valuable information in both working memory and long-term memory tasks with observable effects on performance. However, it is currently unclear whether prioritising an item for a working memory task automatically translates into a boost at long-term memory. This was examined in two experiments using relatively short (250 ms per item; Experiment 1) and longer (500 ms per item; Experiment 2) encoding times. Participants first completed a visual working memory task, in which they were presented with series of photographs of everyday objects. Following a brief delay (1,000 ms), they completed a four-alternative forced-choice test. Prior to encoding, participants were informed of the point values associated with each item. In some trials, the first item in the sequence was worth more points than the rest. In other trials, all items were equally valuable. After a filled delay, participants completed a surprise long-term memory task. At working memory, a value effect was reliably observed on recognition accuracy, along with some evidence of faster response times for high-value items. However, there was little consistent evidence of this effect automatically persisting into long-term memory. Thus, the benefits of attentional prioritization in working memory do not always translate into longer-term performance. More broadly, this provides further evidence that manipulations that enhance working memory performance do not necessarily enhance long-term memory

Large-scale assessment of 7-11-year-olds’ cognitive and sensorimotor function within the Born in Bradford longitudinal birth cohort study [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Background: Cognitive ability and sensorimotor function are crucial aspects of children’s development, and are associated with physical and mental health outcomes and educational attainment. This paper describes cross-sectional sensorimotor and cognitive function data collected on over 15,000 children aged 7-10 years, collected as part of the Born in Bradford (BiB) longitudinal birth-cohort study. Methodological details of the large-scale data collection process are described, along with initial analyses of the data involving the relationship between cognition/sensorimotor ability and age and task difficulty, and associations between tasks. Method: Data collection was completed in 86 schools between May 2016 and July 2019. Children were tested at school, individually, using a tablet computer with a digital stylus or finger touch for input. Assessments comprised a battery of three sensorimotor tasks (Tracking, Aiming, & Steering) and five cognitive tasks (three Working Memory tasks, Inhibition, and Processing Speed), which took approximately 40 minutes. Results: Performance improved with increasing age and decreasing task difficulty, for each task. Performance on all three sensorimotor tasks was correlated, as was performance on the three working memory tasks. In addition, performance on a composite working memory score correlated with performance on both inhibition and processing speed. Interestingly, within age-group variation was much larger than between age-group variation. Conclusions: The current project collected computerised measures of a range of cognitive and sensorimotor functions at 7-10 years of age in over 15,000 children. Performance varied as expected by age and task difficulty, and showed the predicted correlations between related tasks. Large within-age group variation highlights the need to consider the profile of individual children in studying cognitive and sensorimotor development. These data can be linked to the wider BiB dataset including measures of physical and mental health, biomarkers and genome-wide data, socio-demographic information, and routine data from local health and education services

Factors affecting children's responses to nonsensical and unanswerable questions

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:DXN040494 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Does value-based prioritization at working memory enhance long-term memory?

Research has demonstrated that individuals can direct their attention to valuable information in both working memory and long-term memory tasks with observable effects on performance. However, it is currently unclear whether prioritising an item for a working memory task automatically translates into a boost at long-term memory. This was examined in two experiments using relatively short (250 ms per item; Experiment 1) and longer (500 ms per item; Experiment 2) encoding times. Participants first completed a visual working memory task, in which they were presented with series of photographs of everyday objects. Following a brief delay (1,000 ms), they completed a four-alternative forced-choice test. Prior to encoding, participants were informed of the point values associated with each item. In some trials, the first item in the sequence was worth more points than the rest. In other trials, all items were equally valuable. After a filled delay, participants completed a surprise long-term memory task. At working memory, a value effect was reliably observed on recognition accuracy, along with some evidence of faster response times for high-value items. However, there was little consistent evidence of this effect automatically persisting into long-term memory. Thus, the benefits of attentional prioritization in working memory do not always translate into longer-term performance. More broadly, this provides further evidence that manipulations that enhance working memory performance do not necessarily enhance long-term memory

Exploring techniques for encoding spoken instructions in working memory: a comparison of verbal rehearsal, motor imagery, self-enactment and action observation

Encoding and recalling spoken instructions is subject to working memory capacity limits. Previous research suggests action-based encoding facilitates instruction recall, but has not directly compared benefits across different types of action-based techniques. The current study addressed this in two experiments with young adults. In Experiment 1, participants listened to instructional sequences containing four action-object pairs, and encoded these instructions using either a motor imagery or verbal rehearsal technique, followed by recall via oral repetition or enactment. Memory for instructions was better when participants used a motor imagery technique during encoding, and when recalling the instructions by enactment. The advantage of using a motor imagery technique was present in both verbal and enacted recall. In Experiment 2, participants encoded spoken instructions whilst implementing one of four techniques (verbal rehearsal, motor imagery, observation of others’ actions or self-enactment), and then recalled the instructions by oral repetition or enactment. For both verbal and enacted recall, memory for instructions was least accurate in the rehearsal condition, while the other encoding conditions did not differ from each other. These novel findings indicate similar benefits of imagining, observation and execution of actions in encoding spoken instructions, and enrich current understanding of action-based benefits in working memory

Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: an introduction

eudaimonia, fully functioning, hedonism, subjective well-being,