Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Secondary task engagement drives the McCabe effect in long-term memory

  • Published:
Memory & Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Processing that occurs while information is held in working memory is critical in long-term retention of that information. One counterintuitive finding is that the concurrent processing required during complex span tasks typically impairs immediate memory, while also leading to improved delayed memory. One proposed mechanism for this effect is retrieval practice that occurs each time memory items are displaced to allow for concurrent processing during complex span tasks. Other research has instead suggested that increased free time during complex span procedures underlies this effect. In the present study, we presented participants with memory items in simple, complex, and slow span tasks and compared their performance on immediate and delayed memory tests. We found that how much a participant engaged with the secondary task of the complex span task corresponded with how strongly they exhibited a complex span boost on delayed memory performance. We also probed what participants were thinking about during the task, and found that participants’ focus varied depending both on task type and secondary task engagement. The results support repeated retrieval as a key mechanism in the relationship between working memory processing and long-term retention. Further, the present study highlights the importance of variation in individual cognitive processing in predicting long-term outcomes even when objective conditions remain unchanged.

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. We do not report the results from the MAAS questionnaire as an error in data collection led to the loss of this data in roughly half of the participants.

  2. Participants saw the following instructions before beginning the complex span practice: “…On each trial, you will see a word, followed by two numbers. Again, you will decide if each number is even or odd. This will repeat four times. After you have seen all of the words, you will be asked to recall as many words as you can remember in the order they were originally presented in…”

References

  • Apicella, C., Norenzayan, A., & Henrich, J. (2020). Beyond WEIRD: A review of the last decade and a look ahead to the global laboratory of the future. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(5), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.07.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnhoorn, J. S., Haasnoot, E., Bocanegra, B. R., & van Steenbergen, H. (2015). QRTEngine: An easy solution for running online reaction time experiments using Qualtrics. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 918–929. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0530-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, L. M., Singmann, H., & Oberauer, K. (2018). The effects of refreshing and elaboration on working memory performance, and their contributions to long-term memory formation. Memory & Cognition, 46(5), 796–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, L. M., Loaiza, V. M., Jäncke, L., Oberauer, K., & Lewis-Peacock, J. A. (2019). Dissociating refreshing and elaboration and their impacts on memory. NeuroImage, 199, 585–597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2015). Age-related slowing in online samples. The Psychological Record, 65(4), 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0135-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camos, V., & Portrat, S. (2015). The impact of cognitive load on delayed recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 1029–1034. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0772-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 33(4), 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/146407481084008

  • Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, K., & Ricker, T. J. (2021). Working memory consolidation improves long-term memory recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(2), 208–219.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, K., Sandry, J., & Ricker, T. (2023). The Effects of Mind-Wandering, Cognitive Load and Task Engagement on Working Memory Performance in Remote Online Experiments. PsyArXiv.

  • Cowan, N. (1988). Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system. Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a Tool for Experimental Behavioral Research. PLOS ONE, 8(3), e57410.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science data-dependent analysis—A “garden of forking paths”—Explains why many statistically significant comparisons don’t hold up. American Scientist, 102(6), 460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartshorne, J. K., & Makovski, T. (2019). The effect of working memory maintenance on long-term memory. Memory & Cognition, 47(4), 749–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbig, B. E. (2016). Reaction time effects in lab-versus Web-based research: Experimental evidence. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1718–1724. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0678-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jarjat, G., Hoareau, V., Plancher, G., Hot, P., Lemaire, B., & Portrat, S. (2018). What makes working memory traces stable over time? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1424(1), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, M., Forster, D. E., Llabre, M. M., & Jha, A. P. (2017). The influence of time on task on mind wandering and visual working memory. Cognition, 169, 84–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loaiza, V. M., & Halse, S. C. (2018). Where Working Memory Meets Long-Term Memory: The Interplay of List Length and Distractors on Memory Performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.

  • Loaiza, V. M., & Lavilla, E. T. (2021). Elaborative strategies contribute to the long-term benefits of time in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 117, 104205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loaiza, V. M., & McCabe, D. P. (2012). Temporal–contextual processing in working memory: Evidence from delayed cued recall and delayed free recall tests. Memory & Cognition, 40(2), 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loaiza, V. M., & McCabe, D. P. (2013). The influence of aging on attentional refreshing and articulatory rehearsal during working memory on later episodic memory performance. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 20(4), 471–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loaiza, V. M., Doherty, C., & Howlett, P. (2021). The long-term consequences of retrieval demands during working memory. Memory & Cognition, 49(1), 112–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. P. (2008). The Role of Covert Retrieval in Working Memory Span Tasks: Evidence from Delayed Recall Tests. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 480–494.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mooneyham, B. W., & Schooler, J. W. (2013). The costs and benefits of mind-wandering: A review. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 67(1), 11–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2018). BayesFactor: Computation of bayes factors for common designs. R package version 0.9.12-4.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor

  • Mrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., Franklin, M. S., Chin, J. M., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). The role of mind-wandering in measurements of general aptitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 788. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027968

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, D. (2017). Short-term memory and long-term memory are still different. Psychological Bulletin, 143(9), 992–1009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, D. (2019). Even an activated long-term memory system still needs a separate short-term store: A reply to Cowan (2019). Psychological Bulletin, 145(8), 848–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000204

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  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(3), 411.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

  • Ricker, T. J. (2015). The role of short-term consolidation in memory persistence. AIMS Neuroscience, 2(4), 259–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. S., Buchsbaum, B. R., & Craik, F. I. M. (2014). Short-term retention of a single word relies on retrieval from long-term memory when both rehearsal and refreshing are disrupted. Memory & Cognition, 42(5), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0398-x

  • Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225

  • Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Speckman, P. L., & Province, J. M. (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(5), 356–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, S., Chen, X., Rebuschat, P., & Meurers, D. (2019). Measuring individual differences in cognitive abilities in the lab and on the web. PLOS ONE, 14(12), e0226217.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sandry, J., Zuppichini, M. D., & Ricker, T. J. (2020). Attentional flexibility and prioritization improves long-term memory. Acta Psychologica, 208, 103104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Semmelmann, K., & Weigelt, S. (2017). Online psychophysics: Reaction time effects in cognitive experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 49(4), 1241–1260. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0783-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Souza, A. S., & Oberauer, K. (2017). Time to process information in working memory improves episodic memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 96, 155–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uittenhove, K., Jeanneret, S., & Vergauwe, E. (2022). From lab-based to web-based behavioural research: Who you test is more important than how you test. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/uy4kb

  • Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. (2007). The Nature of Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity: Active Maintenance in Primary Memory and Controlled Search From Secondary Memory. Psychological Review, 114(1), 104–132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Open Practices Statement

Data and analyses scripts are openly available at the project’s Open Science Framework page (https://osf.io/e3fqu/). None of the experiments were preregistered.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, 365 5th Ave, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Kelly Cotton

  2. Department of Psychology, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA

    Joshua Sandry

  3. Department of Psychology, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA

    Timothy J. Ricker

Authors
  1. Kelly Cotton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua Sandry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timothy J. Ricker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly Cotton.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cotton, K., Sandry, J. & Ricker, T.J. Secondary task engagement drives the McCabe effect in long-term memory. Mem Cogn (2023). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01450-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01450-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation