Advertisement

Dual-memory retrieval efficiency after practice: effects of strategy manipulations

  • Franziska HeidemannEmail author
  • Timothy C. Rickard
  • Torsten Schubert
  • Tilo Strobach
Original Article
  • 60 Downloads

Abstract

The study investigated practice effects, instruction manipulations, and the associated cognitive architecture of dual-memory retrieval from a single cue. In two experiments, we tested predictions about the presence of learned parallelism in dual-memory retrieval within the framework of the set-cue bottleneck model. Both experiments included three experimental laboratory sessions and involved computerized assessments of dual-memory retrieval performance with strategy instruction manipulations. In Experiment 1, subjects were assigned to three distinct dual-task practice instruction groups: (1) a neutral instruction group without a specific direction on how to solve the task (i.e., neutral instruction), (2) an instruction to synchronize the responses (i.e., synchronize instruction), and (3) an instruction to use a sequential response style (i.e., immediate instruction). Results indicate that strategy instructions are able to effectively influence dual retrieval during practice. Mainly, the instruction to synchronize responses led to the presence of learned retrieval parallelism. Experiment 2 provided an assessment of the cognitive processing architecture of dual-memory retrieval. The results provide support for the presence of a structural bottleneck that cannot be eliminated by extensive practice and instruction manipulations. Further results are discussed with respect to the set-cue bottleneck model.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Anja Skoglund, Merle Schüler and Cerly Teymourian for their assistance with data collection. The study and data collection have been performed in accordance with Standard 8 of the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologist and Code of Conduct. The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or clinical patient data. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and /or publication of the article. This study was supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) under grant number STR 1223/1.

Funding

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) under grant number STR 1223/1.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and /or publication of the article.

Ethical approval

The study and data collection have been performed in accordance with Standard 8 of the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologist and Code of Conduct. The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or clinical patient data. All procedures performed in studies were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies performed on animals.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Brickenkamp, R., & Zillmer, E. (1998). The d2 test of attention. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  2. Brüning, J., & Manzey, D. (2018). Flexibility of individual multitasking strategies in task-switching with preview: are preferences for serial versus overlapping task processing dependent on between-task conflict? Psychological Research, 82(1), 92–108.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0924-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Burgess, P. W., Veitch, E., de Lacy Costello, A., & Shallice, T. (2000). The cognitive and neuroanatomical correlates of multitasking. Neuropsychologia, 38(6), 848–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, Q., & Yan, Z. (2016). Does multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1989). NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  6. Dembo, M. H., & Seli, H. P. (2004). Students’ resistance to change in learning strategies courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(3), 2–11.Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, R., & Plessow, F. (2015). Efficient multitasking: parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Han, S. W., & Marois, R. (2013). The source of dual-task limitations: Serial or parallel processing of multiple response selections? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(7), 1395–1405.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0513-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(3), 527–545.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoijtink, H., Klugkist, I., & Boelen, P. (2008). Bayesian evaluation of informative hypotheses. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ishizaka, K., Marshall, S. P., & Conte, J. M. (2001). Individual differences in attentional strategies in multitasking situations. Human Performance, 14(4), 339–358.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043hup1404_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jansen, R. J., van Egmond, R., & de Ridder, H. (2016). Task prioritization in dual-tasking: Instructions versus preferences. PLoS ONE, 11(7), 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. JASP Team (2018). JASP (Version 0.8.6) [Computer software].Google Scholar
  14. Jordan, J. D., Landau, E. M., & Iyengar, R. (2000). Signaling networks: the origins of cellular multitasking. Cell, 103(2), 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kramer, A. F., Larish, J. F., & Strayer, D. L. (1995). Training for attentional control in dual task settings: a comparison of young and old adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1(1), 50–76.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.1.1.50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kruschke, J. K. (2013). Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 573–603.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laine, M., Fellman, D., Waris, O., & Nyman, T. J. (2018). The early effects of external and internal strategies on working memory updating training. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 4045–4056.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22396-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Lehle, C., & Hübner, R. (2009). Strategic capacity sharing between two tasks: Evidence from tasks with the same and with different task sets. Psychological Research, 73(5), 707–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lehle, C., Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Serial or parallel processing in dual tasks: What is more effortful? Psychophysiology, 46(3), 502–509.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00806.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2008). Task prioritisation in multitasking during driving: Opportunity to abort a concurrent task does not insulate braking responses from dual-task slowing. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(4), 507–525.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maquestiaux, F., Laguë-Beauvais, M., Bherer, L., & Ruthruff, E. (2008). Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Evidence for task automatization and greedy resource recruitment. Memory & Cognition, 36(7), 1262–1282.  https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.7.1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McNamara, D. S., & Scott, J. L. (2001). Working memory capacity and strategy use. Memory & Cognition, 29(1), 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meneghetti, C., Cardillo, R., Mammarella, I. C., Caviola, S., & Borella, E. (2017). The role of practice and strategy in mental rotation training: transfer and maintenance effects. Psychological Research, 81(2), 415–431.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0749-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part I. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104(1), 3–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, J., & Durst, M. (2014). “Just do it when you get a chance”: the effects of a background task on primary task performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(8), 2560–2574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nino, R. S., & Rickard, T. C. (2003). Practice effects on two memory retrievals from a single cue. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oberauer, K., & Bialkova, S. (2011). Serial and parallel processes in working memory after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 606–614.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020986.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2004). Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4), 689–707.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.689.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Orscheschek, F., Strobach, T., Schubert, T., & Rickard, T. (2018). Two retrievals from a single cue: A bottleneck persists across episodic and semantic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5), 1005–1028.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818776818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  32. Reissland, J., & Manzey, D. (2016). Serial or overlapping processing in multitasking as individual preference: Effects of stimulus preview on task switching and concurrent dual-task performance. Acta Psychologica, 168, 27–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.04.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H. E., & Hazeltine, E. (2003). Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement? Perception & Psychophysics, 65(5), 801–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H. E., & Klaassen, A. (2001). Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or strategic postponement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(1), 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruthruff, E., Van Selst, M., Johnston, J. C., & Remington, R. (2006). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening? Psychological Research, 70(2), 125–142.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-004-0192-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Strayer, D. L., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J. M. (2013). Who multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e54402.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054402.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Schell, K. L., & Conte, J. M. (2008). Associations among polychronicity, goal orientation, and error orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 288–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.08.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmidt, K., & Metzler, P. (1992). Wortschatztest (WST)(“German vocabulary test for crystalline intelligence estimation”). Weinheim: Beltz Test GmbH.Google Scholar
  39. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological science, 12(2), 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sternberg, R. J., Zhang, L.-F., & Rayner, S. (2011). Handbook of intellectual styles: Preferences in cognition, learning, and thinking. Berlin: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  41. Strobach, T., Frensch, P., Mueller, H. J., & Schubert, T. (2012a). Testing the limits of optimizing dual-task performance in younger and older adults. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 39–50.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00039.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Strobach, T., Frensch, P., Müller, H., & Schubert, T. (2012b). Age-and practice-related influences on dual-task costs and compensation mechanisms under optimal conditions of dual-task performance. Aging Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 19(1–2), 222–247.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2011.630973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2017). Mechanisms of practice-related reductions of dual-task interference with simple tasks: data and theory. Advances in cognitive psychology, 13(1), 28–41.  https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0204-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Strobach, T., Schubert, T., Pashler, H., & Rickard, T. (2014). The specificity of learned parallelism in dual-memory retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 42(4), 552–569.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0382-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Süß, H.-M., Oberauer, K., Wittmann, W. W., Wilhelm, O., & Schulze, R. (2002). Working-memory capacity explains reasoning ability—and a little bit more. Intelligence, 30(3), 261–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swanson, H. L., Orosco, M. J., & Lussier, C. M. (2014). The effects of mathematics strategy instruction for children with serious problem-solving difficulties. Exceptional Children, 80(2), 149–168.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291408000202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2000). Is the PRP effect due to a strategic or structural bottleneck. New Orleans: In Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale-fourth edition (WAIS–IV): San Antonio. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical School HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Behavioral and Clinical NeuroscienceRuhr-University BochumBochumGermany
  3. 3.University of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA
  4. 4.Martin-Luther University Halle-WittenbergHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations