Abstract
Previous studies found that working memory maintenance contributes to long-term memory formation, and some evidence suggests that this effect could be larger when individuals are informed of the final long-term memory test. However, no study so far has explored whether and how working memory maintenance adapts when long-term retention is intentional. In this study, we conducted two experiments using verbal complex span tasks followed by delayed-recall tests. In both experiments, we evaluated working memory maintenance by varying the cognitive load of the concurrent task and with memory strategies reports. We manipulated intentions to remember at long term by warning participants of the final delayed recall or not (Experiment 1) or by monetarily rewarding immediate or delayed-recall performance (Experiment 2). We found no evidence that intentions changed the working memory maintenance mechanisms and strategies used, yet the cognitive load (Experiment 1) and rewards (Experiment 2) effects on delayed recalls were increased with a higher intention to remember at long term. We discuss possible interpretations for these results and suggest that the effect of intentions may not be due to a change in the kind of maintenance mechanisms used. As our results cannot be explained solely by encoding or maintenance processes, we instead propose that intentions produce a combined change in encoding and maintenance. However, the exact nature of this modulation will need further investigation. We conclude that understanding how intentions modulate the effect of working memory on long-term memory could shed new light on their relationship.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Experiment files, datasets, and analyses scripts for the experiments are available via the Open Science Framework at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Y4672.
Notes
These were the sentences presented to the participants (translated from French). Verbal rehearsal: “Verbally rehearse in your head/orally”. Mental images: “Form separate mental images for each word”. Visual scene: “Imagine a visual scene that contains images of all words”. Stories: “Telling yourself a story linking words”. Mental line: “Place words or images on a mental line”. Refreshing: “Think back to the words, but without saying them in your head”. Places: “Mentally place the words in a familiar location”. Other: “Other: please enter a description of the strategy”.
To evaluate if participants rewarded based on LTM performance recalled more words overall or only more high-value items, we also compared the two groups for low-value and high-value items distinctively. Evidence was inconclusive for low-value items (BF01 = 1.50), but moderate evidence supported a difference for high-value items (BF10 = 7.39). Thus, the rewarded test’s effect seems to mainly come from a difference in recalling high-value items.
References
Adcock, R. A., Thangavel, A., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Knutson, B., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2006). Reward-motivated learning: Mesolimbic activation precedes memory formation. Neuron, 50(3), 507–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.03.036
Addante, R. J., Watrous, A. J., Yonelinas, A. P., Ekstrom, A. D., & Ranganath, C. (2011). Prestimulus theta activity predicts correct source memory retrieval. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(26), 10702–10707. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014528108
Addante, R. J., de Chastelaine, M., & Rugg, M. D. (2015). Pre-stimulus neural activity predicts successful encoding of inter-item associations. NeuroImage, 105, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.046
Allen, R. J., & Ueno, T. (2018). Multiple high-reward items can be prioritized in working memory but with greater vulnerability to interference. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(7), 1731–1743. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1543-6
Atkinson, A. L., Allen, R. J., Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J., & Waterman, A. H. (2021). Can valuable information be prioritized in verbal working memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(5), 747–764. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000979
Atkinson, A. L., Oberauer, K., Allen, R. J., & Souza, A. S. (2022). Why does the probe value effect emerge in working memory? Examining the biased attentional refreshing account. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(3), 891–900. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02056-6
Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2015). Working memory: Loss and reconstruction (1st ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755854
Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., & Camos, V. (2004). Time Constraints and resource sharing in adults’ working memory spans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.83
Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., Portrat, S., Vergauwe, E., & Camos, V. (2007). Time and cognitive load in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 570–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.570
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. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0805-9
Camos, V. (2015). Storing verbal information in working memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 440–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415606630
Camos, V., & Barrouillet, P. (2014). Attentional and non-attentional systems in the maintenance of verbal information in working memory: The executive and phonological loops. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 900. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00900
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
Camos, V., Mora, G., & Oberauer, K. (2011). Adaptive choice between articulatory rehearsal and attentional refreshing in verbal working memory. Memory & Cognition, 39(2), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0011-x
Camos, V., Johnson, M., Loaiza, V., Portrat, S., Souza, A., & Vergauwe, E. (2018). What is attentional refreshing in working memory?: What is attentional refreshing? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1424(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13616
Camos, V., Mora, G., Oftinger, A.-L., Mariz Elsig, S., Schneider, P., & Vergauwe, E. (2019). Does semantic long-term memory impact refreshing in verbal working memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000657
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000954
de Leeuw, J. R. (2015). jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y
Elliott, B. L., & Brewer, G. A. (2019). Divided attention selectively impairs value-directed encoding. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.156
Hartshorne, J. K., & Makovski, T. (2019). The effect of working memory maintenance on long-term memory. Memory & Cognition, 47(4), 749–763. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00908-6
Hitch, G. J., Hu, Y., Allen, R. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2018). Competition for the focus of attention in visual working memory: Perceptual recency versus executive control: Focus of attention in visual working memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1424(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13631
Jarjat, G., Hoareau, V., Plancher, G., Hot, P., Lemaire, B., & Portrat, S. (2018). What makes working memory traces stable over time?: Working memory conditions for long-term recall. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1424(1), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13668
Jarjat, G., Plancher, G., & Portrat, S. (2020). Core mechanisms underlying the long-term stability of working memory traces still work in aging. L’Année psychologique, 120(2), 203. https://doi.org/10.3917/anpsy1.202.0203
Jeanneret, S., Bartsch, L. M., & Vergauwe, E. (2022). To be or not to be relevant: Comparing short- and long-term consequences across working memory prioritization procedures [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vp953
Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. Clarendon.
Johnson, M. K. (1992). MEM: Mechanisms of recollection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4(3), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1992.4.3.268
Kawasaki, M., & Yamaguchi, Y. (2013). Frontal theta and beta synchronizations for monetary reward increase visual working memory capacity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(5), 523–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss027
Khader, P. H., Jost, K., Ranganath, C., & Rösler, F. (2010). Theta and alpha oscillations during working-memory maintenance predict successful long-term memory encoding. Neuroscience Letters, 468(3), 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2009.11.028
Labaronne, M., Jarjat, G., & Plancher, G. (2023). Attentional refreshing in the absence of long-term memory content: Role of short-term and long-term consolidation. Journal of Cognition, 6(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.246
Lange, K., Kühn, S., & Filevich, E. (2015). “Just Another Tool for Online Studies”” (JATOS): An easy solution for setup and management of web servers supporting online studies. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0130834. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130834
Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2013). Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087759
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. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0148-2
Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M., & Lüdecke, D. (2019). bayestestR: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the Bayesian framework. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(40), 1541. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01541
Mathôt, S. (2017). Bayes like a Baws: Interpreting Bayesian repeated measures in JASP [Blog post]. COGSCI. https://www.cogsci.nl/blog/interpreting-Bayesian-repeated-measures-in-jasp. Accessed 23 May 2019.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.004
Mora, G., & Camos, V. (2013). Two systems of maintenance in verbal working memory: Evidence from the word length effect. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e70026. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070026
Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2015). BayesFactor (version 0.9. 10-2). Computer Software.
New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L., & Matos, R. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUETM//A lexical database for contemporary french : LEXIQUETM. L’année Psychologique, 101(3), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2001.1341
New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 516–524. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195598
Plancher, G., & Barrouillet, P. (2013). Forgetting from working memory: Does novelty encoding matter? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(1), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028475
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (3.5.3). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Rosselet-Jordan, F. L., Abadie, M., Mariz-Elsig, S., & Camos, V. (2022). Role of attention in the associative relatedness effect in verbal working memory: Behavioral and chronometric perspectives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(11), 1571–1589. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001102
RStudio Team. (2021). RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio Inc. http://www.rstudio.com/
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450
Sandry, J., & Ricker, T. J. (2020). Prioritization within visual working memory reflects a flexible focus of attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(6), 2985–3004. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02049-4
Sandry, J., Schwark, J. D., & MacDonald, J. (2014). Flexibility within working memory and the focus of attention for sequential verbal information does not depend on active maintenance. Memory & Cognition, 42(7), 1130–1142. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0422-1
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
Schneider, S. L., & Rose, M. (2016). Intention to encode boosts memory-related pre-stimulus EEG beta power. NeuroImage, 125, 978–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.024
Souza, A. S., & Oberauer, K. (2017). Time to process information in working memory improves episodic memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 96, 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.07.002
Funding
This work was performed within the framework of the LABEX CORTEX (ANR-11-LABX-0042) of Université de Lyon, within the program "Investissements d'Avenir" (ANR-11-IDEX-0007) operated by the French National Research Agency (ANR). This research was supported in part by a grant from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-18-CE28-0012) awarded to Gaën Plancher, Project REFLECTOR and by the Institut Universitaire de France.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interest to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix 1
Simple span performance split in Experiment 1
First, we used the median of the simple span performance to distinguish high- and low-performance participants. In particular, we were interested to see if the interaction between CL and delayed recall awareness on delayed recall was modulated by participants’ overall WM performance. Participants having a mean correct response in the simple span equal or inferior to the median of the means correct percentage were labeled as low performance, while the rest of the participants were labeled high performance. Simple span trials were then removed from the data set, and analyses were conducted similarly to the main analyses excepted for the inclusion of performance group as a factor. Two Bayesian analyses of variance were conducted on immediate serial recall and delayed recall, using CL (low vs. high), delayed recall awareness (aware vs. unaware), and performance group (low vs. high) as predictors and subjects as a random factor. Bayesian models were compared to a null model including only a random effect of subjects.
At immediate recall, the best model included the main effects of delayed recall awareness, CL, and performance group (BF10 = 2.62e+05). Evidence regarding the interaction between delayed recall awareness and performance group (BFexclusion = 2.58) and the interaction between the three factors (BFexclusion = 2.87) were inconclusive. There was moderate evidence supporting an absence of interaction between CL and performance group (BFexclusion = 4.02).
At delayed recall, the best model included the main effects of delayed recall awareness, CL, and performance group, the interaction between delayed recall awareness and CL, and the interaction between delayed recall awareness and performance group (BF10 = 5.08e+04). Evidence for the interaction between delayed recall awareness and performance group (BFinclusion = 1.10) and for the interaction between the three factors (BFexclusion = 2.73) were inconclusive. There was moderate evidence supporting the absence of interaction between CL and performance group (BFexclusion = 3.32).
Appendix 2
Motivation scale results in Experiment 1
First, we assessed if the reported scores in each of the four dimensions of the scale (perceived choice, perceived competence, interest/enjoyment, pressure/tension) differed between aware and unaware participants. We conducted Bayesian t-tests on each score between the two groups. Evidence supported an absence of difference for the perceived choice (BF01 = 3.25), perceived competence (BF01 = 3.86), and pressure (BF01 = 4.28) dimensions. The difference on the interest dimension was inconclusive (BF01 = 2.13).
Additionally, we evaluated if memory performance in immediate or delayed recalls correlated with dimensions on the motivation scale. One Bayesian correlation was conducted on each combination of motivation dimension and mean percentage of recall for immediate serial and delayed recall. Moderate evidence supported an absence of correlation between perceived choice and immediate serial recall performance (BF01 = 3.73). Evidence for a correlation between immediate serial recall and perceived competence (BF10 = 1.02), interest (BF01 = 2.52), and pressure (BF10 = 1.29) were inconclusive. There was moderate evidence supporting a correlation between delayed-recall performance and interest (BF10 = 3.14, r = .33). Evidence for a correlation between delayed recall and perceived choice (BF10 = 1.80), perceived competence (BF10 = 1.40), and pressure (BF10 = 1.99) were inconclusive.
Appendix 3
Lenient immediate recall analyses
We computed a lenient immediate recall scoring, which is similar to serial immediate scoring but does not take into account the serial position of the recalled items. Thus, an item correctly recalled but at a wrong serial position was considered incorrect in the serial scoring but correct in the lenient scoring. The analysis on the lenient scoring was conducted similarly to the analysis on serial immediate scoring in both experiments and led to similar findings.
In Experiment 1, the best model using the lenient scoring included only the main effect of maintenance condition (BF10 = 5.42e+12). Evidence for the main effect of delayed-recall awareness was inconclusive (BFexclusion = 1.51). There was extreme evidence supporting a main effect of maintenance condition (BFinclusion = 5.02e+12). There was strong evidence supporting an absence of interaction between maintenance condition and delayed-recall awareness (BFexclusion = 11.76).
In Experiment 2, the best model included the main effects of CL and reward value (BF10 = 7.09e+09). There was extreme evidence for an effect of CL (BFinclusion = 2.67e+03). There was moderate evidence for an absence of interaction between CL and reward value (BFexclusion = 4.50). CL also did not interact with rewarded test (BFexclusion = 3.58). Evidence regarding the interaction between the three factors was inconclusive (BFexclusion = 2.95). Additionally, we found extreme evidence for a main effect of reward value (BFinclusion = 2.16e+07). Results indicated inconclusive evidence for the main effect of rewarded test (BFexclusion = 2.35). Evidence against the interaction between rewarded test and reward value was moderate (BFexclusion = 4.17).
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Labaronne, M., Ferreri, L. & Plancher, G. How do intentions modulate the effect of working memory on long-term memory?. Psychon Bull Rev 31, 790–801 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02381-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02381-4