Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Working memory updating occurs independently of the need to maintain task-context: accounting for triggering updating in the AX-CPT paradigm

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Theoretical models suggest that maintenance and updating are two functional states of working memory (WM), which are controlled by a gate between perceptual information and WM representations. Opening the gate enables updating WM with input, while closing it enables keeping the maintained information shielded from interference. However, it is still unclear when gate opening takes place, and what is the external signal that triggers it. A version of the AX-CPT paradigm was used to examine a recent proposal in the literature, suggesting that updating is triggered whenever the maintenance of the context is necessary for task performance (context-dependent tasks). In four experiments using this paradigm, we show that (1) a task-switching cost takes place in both context-dependent and context-independent trials; (2) task-switching is additive to the dependency effect, and (3) unlike switching cost, the dependency effect is not affected by preparation and, therefore, does not reflect context-updating. We suggest that WM updating is likely to be triggered by a simple mechanism that occurs in each trial of the task regardless of whether maintaining the context is needed or not. The implications for WM updating and its relationship to task-switching are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The sample size varied between the experiments. Experiment 1 was a replication of D’Ardenne et al.’s study, and served for a proof of concept towards the following experiments. Experiments 2 and 3 were designed to enable a more fine-grained analysis, and hence included more participants. N was larger in Experiment 4 to compensate for the smaller reliability of the measurement, compared to Experiments 1–3, due the smaller number of trials per condition.

  2. This variable is typically termed “task-rule congruency” in the task-switching literature (Meiran & Kessler, 2008). We decided to keep the term “dependency” in order to be consistent with D’Ardenne and colleagues’ paper terminology.

  3. It should be noted that a CTI of 750 ms is typically considered to be relatively long in the task-switching literature. While acknowledging this fact, this interval was selected in order to remain as close as possible to the original paradigm, in which (unlike most task-switching experiments) the cue disappears for 500 ms before the probe is presented. Accordingly, a 750 ms CTI involves a cue presentation for 250 ms, plus the 500 ms interval.

References

  • Baddeley, A., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 130, 641–657.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Badre, D. (2012). Opening the gate to working memory. PNAS, 109, 19878–19879.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 106–113.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Braver, T. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2000). On the control of control: the role of dopamine in regulating prefrontal function and working memory. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: control of cognitive processes (pp. 713–737). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromberg-Martin, E. S., Matsumoto, M., & Hikosaka, O. (2010). Dopamine in motivational control: rewarding, aversive, and alerting. Neuron, 68, 815–834.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bunting, M., Cowan, N., & Saults, J. S. (2006). How does running memory span work? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1691–1700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 114–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Ardenne, K., Eshel, N., Luka, J., Lenartowicz, A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2012). Role of prefrontal cortex and the midbrain dopamine system in working memory updating. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 109, 19900–19909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayan, P. (2012). How to set the switches on this thing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 22, 1068–1074.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., & Wenke, D. (2011). The shielding function of task sets and its relaxation during task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 37, 1540–1546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecker, U. K., Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2014). Removal of information from working memory: a specific updating process. Journal of Memory and Language, 74, 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Chee, A. E. H. (2010). The components of working memory updating: an experimental decomposition and individual differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 36, 170–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiore, F., Borella, E., Mammarella, I. C., & De Beni, R. (2012). Age differences in verbal and visuo-spatial working memory updating: evidence from analysis of serial position curves. Memory, 20, 14–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. J., Loughry, B., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2001). Interactions between frontal cortex and basal ganglia in working memory: a computational model. Cognitive Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 1, 137–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Corley, R. P., Young, S. E., Defries, J. C., & Hewitt, J. K. (2006). Not all executive functions are related to intelligence. Psychological Science, 17, 172–179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garavan, H. (1998). Serial attention within working memory. Memory Cognition, 26, 263–276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1987). Circuitry of the prefrontal cortex and the regulation of behavior by representational memory. In V. B. Mountcastle, F. Plum, & S. R. Geiger (Eds.), Handbook of neurobiology (pp. 373–417). Bethesda: American Physiological Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. R., Chabris, C. F., & Braver, T. S. (2003). Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 316–322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hazy, T. E., Frank, M. J., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2007). Towards an executive without a homunculus: computational models of the prefrontal cortex/basal ganglia system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 1601–1613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R., Miura, T. K., & Colflesh, G. J. (2007). Working memory, attention control, and the N-back task: a question of construct validity. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 33, 615–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, Y., & Meiran, N. (2006). All updateable objects in working memory are updated whenever any of them is modified: evidence from the memory updating paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 32, 570–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, Y., & Meiran, N. (2008). Two dissociable updating processes in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 34, 1339–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, Y., & Meiran, N. (2010). The reaction-time task-rule congruency effect (RT-TRCE) is not affected by working memory load: further support for the activated long-term memory hypothesis. Psychological Research, 74, 388–399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, Y., & Oberauer, K. (2014). The time for updating working memory reflects the cost of switching between stability and flexibility mode. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 40, 738–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, Y., & Oberauer, K. (2015) Forward scanning in verbal working memory updating. Psychonomic Bulletin Review. (in press).

  • Kiesel, A., Stenhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 29, 575–599.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279–281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Masson, M. E. J., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 203–220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., Kuhns, D., & Hubbard, J. (2014). Long-term memory and the control of attentional control. Cognitive Psychology, 72, 1–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (2000). The reconfiguration of the stimulus task-set and the response task set during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: control of cognitive processes (pp. 377–400). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., & Daichman, A. (2005). Advance task preparation reduces task error rate in the cueing task-switching paradigm. Memory and Cognition, 33, 1272–1288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Hsieh, S., & Dimov, E. (2010). Resolving task rule incongruence during task switching by competitor rule suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 36, 992–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., & Kessler, Y. (2008). The task rule congruency effect in task switching reflects activated long-term. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 34, 137–157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 8–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 32, 493–516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, N., & Jones, D. M. (1990). Memory updating in working memory: the role of the central executive. British journal of psychology, 81, 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, R. C. (2006). Biologically based computational models of high-level cognition. Science, 314, 91–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, R. C., & Frank, M. J. (2006). Making working memory work: a computational model of learning in the prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia. Neural Computation, 18, 283–328.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oberauer, K. (2001). Removing irrelevant information from working memory: a cognitive aging study with the modified Sternberg task. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 27, 948–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberauer, K. (2002). Access to information in working memory: exploring the focus of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 28, 411–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberauer, K., Souza, A. S., Druey, M., & Gade, M. (2013). Analogous mechanisms of selection and updating in declarative and procedural working memory: experiments and a computational model. Cognitive Psychology, 66, 157–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palladino, P., & Jarrold, C. (2008). Do updating tasks involve updating? Evidence from comparisons with immediate serial recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 392–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, I., Johnson, L. B., & Knaff, P. R. (1959). Running memory span. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 137–146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, M., Elosúa, M. R., & Lechuga, M. T. (2005). Old-fashioned responses in an updating memory task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 887–908.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, 275, 1593–1597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Szmalec, A., Verbruggen, F., Vandierendonck, A., & Kemps, E. (2011). Control of interference during working memory updating. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 37, 137–151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, R. A. (2004). Dopamine, learning and motivation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 483–494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). Automaticity without extensive training: the role of memory retrieval in implementation of task-defined rules. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 18, 347–354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant agreement no. PCIG09-GA-2011-293832 awarded to the first author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology and Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 84105, Beer-Sheva, Israel

    Yoav Kessler, Liad J. Baruchin & Anat Bouhsira-Sabag

Authors
  1. Yoav Kessler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liad J. Baruchin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anat Bouhsira-Sabag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoav Kessler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kessler, Y., Baruchin, L.J. & Bouhsira-Sabag, A. Working memory updating occurs independently of the need to maintain task-context: accounting for triggering updating in the AX-CPT paradigm. Psychological Research 81, 191–203 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0717-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0717-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation