Advertisement

Working Memory for Visual and Haptic Targets: A Study Using the Interference Paradigm

  • Manuel Sebastián
  • Julia Mayas
  • Antonio J. Manso
  • Soledad Ballesteros
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5024)

Abstract

We investigated the effect of different types of interference in visual and haptic working memory using a dual-task paradigm. At encoding, 16 young adults performed both, a haptic and a visual primary task followed by the performance of a secondary interference task during a retention interval. The interference task could be a haptic (spatial), visual (spatial), auditory, or control (visual-static) task. The idea was to study the influence of spatial and verbal interference on working memory for spatial targets encoded visually or haptically. The results indicated that the auditory interference task did not deteriorate performance compared to the control condition in which participants performed the visual-static task. The negative effects of spatial interference increased when both the primary and secondary tasks were performed using the same modality. Spatial interference selectively deteriorated both visual and haptic working memory but more strongly the later.

Keywords

Haptic working memory visual working memory dual-task paradigm 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baddeley, A.D.: Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. 4, 829–839 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Öberauer, K., Göthe, K.: Dual-task effects in working memory: Interference between two processing tasks, between two memory demands, and between storage and processing. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 18, 493–519 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burton, H., Sinclair, R.J.: Attending to and remembering tactile stimuli: a review of brain imaging data and single-neuron responses. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 17, 575–591 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bliss, I., Hämälainen, H.: Different working memory capacity in normal young adults for visual and tactile letter recognition task. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 46, 247–251 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paz, S., Mayas, J., Ballesteros, S.: Haptic and visual working memory in young adults, healthy older adults, and mild cognitive impairment adults. In: WorldHaptics Proceedings (WHC 2007), Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 553–554. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Millar, S.: Memory in touch. Psicothema 11, 747–767 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Newell, F.M., Woods, A.T., Mernagh, M., Bülthoff, H.H.: Visual, haptic and crossmodal recognition of scenes. Experimental Brain Research 161, 233–242 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lacey, S., Campbell, C.: Mental representation in visual/haptic crossmodal memory: Evidence from interference effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 52(2), 361–376 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Sebastián
    • 1
  • Julia Mayas
    • 1
  • Antonio J. Manso
    • 1
  • Soledad Ballesteros
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad Nacional de Educación a DistanciaMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations