Working memory capacity: concurrent subtasks need not interfere

Available
The embargo period has ended, and this item is now available.

Date

2022-10

Editor(s)

Advisor

Farooqui, Ausaf Ahmed

Supervisor

Co-Advisor

Co-Supervisor

Instructor

Source Title

Print ISSN

Electronic ISSN

Publisher

Bilkent University

Volume

Issue

Pages

Language

English

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Series

Abstract

Any extended task episode is subsumed by goal-directed programs that hierar- chically control its execution. We investigated the relationship between working memory capacity and the control instantiated by such hierarchical task entities across four experiments. In a new extended task consisting of subtask A and subtask B, participants first memorized the orientation of subtask A lines (let’s call this event mA), then memorized subtask B lines (mB), then recalled these B lines (rB), and finally recalled A lines (rA). The task structure was: mA-mB-rB- rA. Subtask A lines were thus held in mind during the execution of subtask B. Even though participants had to remember the orientation of lines in both cases, increased WM load of lines A only affected performance on subtask A and did not affect the performance on subtask B. In Experiment 2, four trials of Exp1 were organized into a complex 4-part task with the added condition that A lines of a part be recalled not in that part but in the next part. The task structure was: mA1-mB1-rB1—mA2-mB2-rB2-rA1—mA3-mB3-rB3-rA2—mB3-rB3-rA3. Load of A lines again did not affect B lines. Crucially, load of A2 and A3 lines did not affect the recall of A1 and A2 lines, respectively. In Experiment 3, in a design similar to Exp1, time constraint on mA and mB increased the interference across concurrent subtasks. Experiment 4 showed that increasing the similarity between subtask A and subtask B of Exp1 may increase the across-subtask in terference. We show that WM information of different concurrent subtasks can be maintained separately, perhaps as part of their goal-directed programs. And, encoding to these non-interfering stores, as well as retrieval from them, might depend on attentional and time-based mechanisms.

Course

Other identifiers

Book Title

Citation

item.page.isversionof