FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2214340255> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2214340255 endingPage "405" @default.
• W2214340255 startingPage "400" @default.
• W2214340255 abstract "Removal of Information from Working Memory Ullrich K. H. Ecker (ullrich.ecker@uwa.edu.au) School of Psychology, University of Western Australia Stephan Lewandowsky (stephan.lewandowsky@bristol.ac.uk) Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol School of Psychology, University of Western Australia Klaus Oberauer (k.oberauer@psychologie.uzh.ch) Department of Psychology, University of Zurich Abstract capacity and unique to situations that demanded WM updat- ing (Ecker, Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Chee, 2010). In that study we analyzed the processing components involved in widely used WM updating tasks, and we identified three sepa- rable components: retrieval, transformation, and substitution. Ecker et al. found that retrieval and transformation operations co-varied with general WM capacity, but that the substitution component did not. We thus argued that substitution is the only process that uniquely represents WM updating, without being “contaminated” by any association with WM. One im- plication of this analysis is that previous studies measuring WM updating did not separate variance unique to updating from the variance of generic WM processes. In this article, we further decompose the components of WM updating. In Ecker et al. (2010), we suggested that infor- mation substitution can be further subdivided into the removal of outdated information and the encoding of new informa- tion. As encoding is a simple and generic operation involved in many cognitive tasks, we argue that it is the removal pro- cess that lies at the heart of memory updating. Accordingly, we focus on the removal of information from WM. Here we show that removal of outdated information can be separated experimentally from encoding of new information. Our removal measure is based on the work of Kessler and Meiran (2008). In the updating paradigm they used, items (e.g., letters or digits) are presented in a set of individual frames. Items are then repeatedly updated by presenting new items in some frames. On each updating step, between one and n items are updated, where n is the memory set size (equal to the number of frames). Participants had to press a key at the end of each step to indicate that they finished updating. Kessler and Meiran (2008) proposed a distinction between local and global updating. Local updating refers to changes made to individual items, whereas global updating refers to the integration of all items in the current memory set after individual items were changed. A key piece of evidence for this distinction comes from the observation (Experiment 3 in Kessler & Meiran, 2008) that updating RTs increased with the number of to-be-updated items up to n−1 items, but updating was much faster again when all n items were to be replaced on a given step. Thus, updating latencies depended in a non- monotonic fashion on the number of to-be-updated items. Kessler and Meiran (2008) explained this non-monotonicity Standard working memory (WM) updating tasks confound up- dating requirements with generic WM functions. We intro- duce a method for isolating a process unique to WM updat- ing, namely the removal of no-longer relevant information. In a modified version of an established updating paradigm, to- be-updated items were cued before the new memoranda were presented. Longer cue-stimulus intervals—that is, longer re- moval time—led to faster updating, showing that people can actively remove information from WM. Well-established ef- fects of item repetition and similarity on updating RTs were diminished with longer removal time, arguably because rep- resentational overlap between out-dated and new information becomes less influential when out-dated information can be re- moved prior to new encoding. The benefit of removal time was found only for partial updating, not for complete updating of entire memory sets. We conclude that removal of out-dated in- formation can be experimentally isolated, and that removal is a unique, active WM updating process. Keywords: Working memory updating; Executive functions Imagine you ask a colleague for his phone extension and he replies: “It’s 3266. No, hang on, in my new office it’s 3257.” Ideally, one should easily discard the last two digits of the outdated information (i.e., “66”) and replace them in working memory (WM) with the correct digits (i.e., “57”). However, this updating of WM content is no trivial task, and outdated information often continues to affect WM (Oberauer, 2001). WM updating has been identified as one of three primary executive processes (Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, & Howerter, 2000). Updating has been claimed to be the only executive process to predict fluid intelligence (Friedman et al., 2006). However, most updating tasks used in previous research (e.g., Miyake et al., 2000) not only require WM up- dating but arguably also measure general WM abilities. This has led some to conclude that updating tasks constitute re- liable assays of general WM capacity (Schmiedek, Hilde- brandt, L¨ovd´en, Wilhelm, & Lindenberger, 2009). This creates an unsatisfactory situation. If WM updating tasks measure just the same as other WM tasks such as com- plex span tasks, then why call them updating tasks? Both conceptually and theoretically, updating can be distinguished from maintenance and processing in WM. If updating is to be established as a non-redundant construct, it must be isolated and measured separately from other WM processes. In a recent individual-differences study, we identified a processing component that was independent of general WM" @default.
• W2214340255 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2214340255 creator A5017914184 @default.
• W2214340255 creator A5028713201 @default.
• W2214340255 creator A5031955814 @default.
• W2214340255 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W2214340255 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2214340255 title "Removal of Information from Working Memory" @default.
• W2214340255 cites W1725218028 @default.
• W2214340255 cites W1970624555 @default.
• W2214340255 cites W1993286623 @default.
• W2214340255 cites W2023217240 @default.
• W2214340255 cites W2063007271 @default.
• W2214340255 cites W2066138269 @default.
• W2214340255 cites W2074282020 @default.
• W2214340255 cites W2086596162 @default.
• W2214340255 cites W2090784723 @default.
• W2214340255 cites W2124517301 @default.
• W2214340255 cites W2127016810 @default.
• W2214340255 cites W2166747518 @default.
• W2214340255 cites W2325834144 @default.
• W2214340255 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2214340255 type Work @default.
• W2214340255 sameAs 2214340255 @default.
• W2214340255 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2214340255 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W2214340255 hasAuthorship W2214340255A5017914184 @default.
• W2214340255 hasAuthorship W2214340255A5028713201 @default.
• W2214340255 hasAuthorship W2214340255A5031955814 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConcept C125411270 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConcept C21963081 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConceptScore W2214340255C125411270 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConceptScore W2214340255C15744967 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConceptScore W2214340255C169760540 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConceptScore W2214340255C169900460 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConceptScore W2214340255C180747234 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConceptScore W2214340255C188147891 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConceptScore W2214340255C21963081 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConceptScore W2214340255C41008148 @default.
• W2214340255 hasConceptScore W2214340255C77805123 @default.
• W2214340255 hasIssue "35" @default.
• W2214340255 hasLocation W22143402551 @default.
• W2214340255 hasOpenAccess W2214340255 @default.
• W2214340255 hasPrimaryLocation W22143402551 @default.
• W2214340255 hasRelatedWork W1193608387 @default.
• W2214340255 hasRelatedWork W2398830165 @default.
• W2214340255 hasRelatedWork W2557222753 @default.
• W2214340255 hasRelatedWork W2763076316 @default.
• W2214340255 hasRelatedWork W2769260697 @default.
• W2214340255 hasRelatedWork W3000040119 @default.
• W2214340255 hasRelatedWork W3009781101 @default.
• W2214340255 hasRelatedWork W965574701 @default.
• W2214340255 hasVolume "35" @default.
• W2214340255 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2214340255 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2214340255 magId "2214340255" @default.
• W2214340255 workType "article" @default.