Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating the role of conflict resolution in memory updating by means of the one-back choice RT task

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

Abstract

The current study is inspired by recent findings, which suggest that conflict is involved in the updating of memory representations. It directly addresses the relation between memory updating and conflict resolution by means of the one-back choice reaction time (RT) task, an updating task, which requires participants to postpone their response to stimulus n until the subsequent stimulus n + 1 has been presented. In three experiments, a more detailed analysis of the one-back choice RT task is presented in order to further identify the role of conflict resolution in memory updating. The findings demonstrate that the one-back choice RT task, which allows motor preparation just like a simple RT task, is in fact performed slower than a simple RT task because it additionally involves conflict resolution. It is further shown that also the response–stimulus interval of the one-back task involves processes that affect the amount of conflict in the task. In the "General discussion", the theoretical relevance of these findings for the concept of updating is 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. Note that we prefer the term conflict resolution over interference because it offers a broader and, as we will argue further, more appropriate description of the processes involved in updating

References

  • Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory, In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.

  • Botvinick, M., Braver, T., Barch, D., Carter, C., & Cohen, J. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 625–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braver, T., Gray, J., & Burgess, G. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In Conway, A., Jarrold, C., Kane, M., Miyake, A., & Towse, J. (Eds.) Variation in working memory. Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, C. D., Bellgrove, M. A., Gould, I. C., English, T., Garavan, H., McNaught, E., et al. (2007). Dissociable mechanisms of cognitive control in prefrontal and premotor cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 98, 3638–3647.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deschuyteneer, M., Vandierendonck, A., & Muyllaert, I. (2006). Does solution of mental arithmetic problems such as 2 + 6 and 3 × 8 rely on the process of “memory updating”? Experimental Psychology, 53, 298–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donders, F. C. (1868). La vitesse des actes psychiques [On the speed of mental processes]. Archives Néerlandaises, 3, 269–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity, what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.) Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. London:Cambridge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, N., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 101–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gratton, G., Coles, M., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation and responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 4, 480–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, M., Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (2000). Constraints on using the dual-task methodology to specify the degree of central executive involvement in cognitive tasks. Memory and Cognition, 28(3), 376–385.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonides, J., Schumacher, E., Smith, E., Lauber, E., Awh, E., Minoshima, S., & Koeppe, R. (1997). Verbal working memory load affects regional brain activation as measured by PET. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 462–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonides, J., & Nee, E. (2006). Brain mechanisms of proactive interference in working memory. Neuroscience, 139, 181–193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M., Conway, A., Miura, T., & Colflesh, G. (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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kemps, E., Szmalec, A., Vandierendonck, A., & Crevits, L. (2005). Visuo-spatial processing in Parkinson’s disease: Evidence for diminished visuo-spatial sketch pad and central executive resources. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 11, 181–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, H. (1970). Transformed up–down methods in psychoacoustics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 467–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. (1994). Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1015–1036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G., & Cowan, W. (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychological Review, 91, 295–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G., Cowan, W., & Davis, K. (1984). On the ability to inhibit responses in simple and choice reaction time tasks: A model and a method. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 276–291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., Friedman, N., Emerson, M., Witzki, A., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. (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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabbitt, P. (1968). Three kinds of error-signalling responses in a serial choice task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 179–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rabbitt, P. (1997). Methodology of frontal and executive function. Hove:Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridderinkhof, K., Band, G., & Logan, G. (1999). A study of adaptive behavior: Effects of age and irrelevant information on the ability to inhibit one’s actions. Acta Psychologica, 101, 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, J. B., Toni, I., Josephs, O., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Passingham, R. E. (2000). The prefrontal cortex: Response selection or maintenance within working memory? Science, 288, 1656–1660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 408–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E., & Jonides, J. (1997). Working memory: A view from neuroimaging. Cognitive Psychology, 33, 5–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E., & Jonides, J. (1999). Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes. Science, 283, 1657–1661.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, M., & Scholey, K. (1994). Interference in immediate spatial memory. Memory & Cognition, 22, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, M., Lammertyn, J., Verbruggen, F., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 280–286.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Szmalec, A., & Vandierendonck, A. (2007). Estimating the executive demands of a one-back choice RT task by means of the selective interference paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1116–1139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szmalec, A., Vandierendonck, A., & Kemps, E. (2005). Response selection involves executive control: Evidence from the selective interference paradigm. Memory and Cognition, 33, 531–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szmalec, A., Verbruggen, F., Vandierendonck, A., De Baene, W., Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Stimulus ambiguity elicits response conflict. Neuroscience Letters, 435, 158–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Linden, M., Collette, F., Salmon, E., Delfiore, G., Degueldre, C., Luxen, A., et al. (1999). The neural correlates of updating information in verbal working memory. Memory, 7, 549–560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2004). The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and Stroop task. Acta Psychologica, 116, 21–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., Notebaert, W., & Vandierendonck, A. (2005). The effects of stimulus–stimulus compatibility and stimulus–response compatibility on response inhibition. Acta Psychologica, 120, 307–326.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). The effect of interference in the early processing stages on response inhibition in the stop signal task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 190–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Arnaud Szmalec, Jelle Demanet, André Vandierendonck & Frederick Verbruggen

  2. Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Frederick Verbruggen

Authors
  1. Arnaud Szmalec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jelle Demanet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. André Vandierendonck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frederick Verbruggen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnaud Szmalec.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Szmalec, A., Demanet, J., Vandierendonck, A. et al. Investigating the role of conflict resolution in memory updating by means of the one-back choice RT task. Psychological Research 73, 390–406 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0149-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0149-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation