Refreshing and removing items in working memory: Different approaches to equivalent processes?

Researchers have investigated “refreshing” of items in working memory (WM) as a means of preserving them, while concurrently, other studies have examined “removal” of items from WM that are irrelevant. However, it is unclear whether refreshing and removal in WM truly represent different processes, o...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Johnson, M.R (Author), Lintz, E.N (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier B.V. 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:View Fulltext in Publisher
LEADER 03016nam a2200481Ia 4500
001 10.1016-j.cognition.2021.104655
008 220427s2021 CNT 000 0 und d
020 |a 00100277 (ISSN) 
245 1 0 |a Refreshing and removing items in working memory: Different approaches to equivalent processes? 
246 1 0 |a Cognition 
260 0 |b Elsevier B.V.  |c 2021 
856 |z View Fulltext in Publisher  |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104655 
520 3 |a Researchers have investigated “refreshing” of items in working memory (WM) as a means of preserving them, while concurrently, other studies have examined “removal” of items from WM that are irrelevant. However, it is unclear whether refreshing and removal in WM truly represent different processes, or if participants, in an effort to avoid the to-be-removed items, simply refresh alternative items. We conducted two experiments to test whether these putative processes can be distinguished from one another. Participants were presented with sets of three words and then cued to either refresh one item or remove two items from WM, followed by a lexical decision probe containing either one of the just-seen words or a non-word. In Experiment 1, all probes were valid and in Experiment 2, probes were occasionally invalid (the probed word was one of the removed/non-refreshed items). In both experiments, participants also received a subsequent surprise long-term memory test. Results from both experiments suggested the expected advantages for refreshed (or non-removed) items in both short-term response time and long-term recognition, but no differences between refresh and remove instructions that would suggest a fundamental difference in processes. Thus, we argue that a functional distinction between refreshing and removal may not be necessary and propose that both of these putative processes could potentially be subsumed under an overarching conceptual perspective based on the flexible reallocation of mental or reflective attention. © 2021 The Authors 
650 0 4 |a adult 
650 0 4 |a article 
650 0 4 |a association 
650 0 4 |a attention 
650 0 4 |a attention 
650 0 4 |a Attention 
650 0 4 |a Attention 
650 0 4 |a Cues 
650 0 4 |a Directed forgetting 
650 0 4 |a Directed remembering 
650 0 4 |a female 
650 0 4 |a human 
650 0 4 |a human experiment 
650 0 4 |a Humans 
650 0 4 |a long term memory 
650 0 4 |a male 
650 0 4 |a memory test 
650 0 4 |a Memory, Short-Term 
650 0 4 |a Mental Recall 
650 0 4 |a reaction time 
650 0 4 |a Reaction Time 
650 0 4 |a recall 
650 0 4 |a Refreshing 
650 0 4 |a Removal 
650 0 4 |a short term memory 
650 0 4 |a working memory 
650 0 4 |a Working memory 
700 1 |a Johnson, M.R.  |e author 
700 1 |a Lintz, E.N.  |e author 
773 |t entry, modular memory system (1983) The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, 17, pp. 81-123. , G.H. Bower Academic Press New York;