Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate how working memory updating for verbal material is modulated by enduring properties of long-term memory. Two coexisting perspectives that account for the relation between long-term representation and short-term performance were addressed. First, evidence suggests that performance is more closely linked to lexical properties, that is, co-occurrences within the language. Conversely, other evidence suggests that performance is linked more to long-term representations which do not entail lexical/linguistic representations. Our aim was to investigate how these two kinds of long-term memory associations (i.e., lexical or nonlexical) modulate ongoing working memory activity. Therefore, we manipulated (between participants) the strength of the association in letters based on either frequency of co-occurrences (lexical) or contiguity along the sequence of the alphabet (nonlexical). Results showed a cost in working memory updating for strongly lexically associated stimuli only. Our findings advance knowledge of how lexical long-term memory associations between consonants affect working memory updating and, in turn, contribute to the study of factors which impact the updating process across memory systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Artuso C, Palladino P (2011) Content-context binding in verbal working memory updating: on-line and off-line effects. Acta Psychol 136:363–369. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.001
Artuso C, Palladino P (2014) Binding and content updating in working memory tasks. Br J Psychol 105:226–242. doi:10.1111/bjop.12024
Artuso C, Palladino P, Ricciardelli P (2012) How do we update faces? Effects of gaze direction and facial expressions on working memory updating. Front Psychol 3:362. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00362
Artuso C, Palladino P, Ricciardelli P (in press) Social updating: the role of gaze direction in updating and memorizing emotional faces. Social Cogn
Baddeley AD (1966) The capacity for generating information by randomization. Q J Exp Psychol 18:119–129. doi:10.1080/14640746608400019
Baddeley AD, Emslie H, Kolodny J, Duncan J (1998) Random generation and the executive control of working memory. Q J Exp Psychol 51A:819–852
Bledowski C, Kaiser J, Rahm B (2010) Basic operations in working memory: contributions from functional imaging studies. Behav Brain Res 214:172–179. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2010.05.041
Conlin JA, Gathercole SE (2006) Lexicality and interference in working memory in children and in adults. J Mem Lang 55:363–380. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.05.003
Cowan N (2001) The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behav Brain Sci 24:87–114. doi:10.1177/0963721409359277
De Beni R, Palladino P (2004) Decline in working memory updating through ageing: intrusion error analyses. Memory 12:75–89. doi:10.1080/09658210244000568
De Mauro T, Mancini F, Vedovelli M, Voghera M (1993) Lessico di frequenza dell’ italiano parlato. [Frequency Lexicon of Spoken Italian Language]. Etas Libri, Milano
Ebbinghaus H (2013) Memory: a contribution to experimental psychology. Ann Neurosci 20:155–156. doi:10.5214/ans.0972.7531.200408
Ecker UKH, Maybery M, Zimmer HD (2013) Binding of intrinsic and extrinsic features in working memory. J Exp Psychol Gen 142:218–234. doi:10.1037/a0028732
Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S, Oberauer K (2014) Removal of information from working memory: a specific updating process. J Mem Lang 74:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.003
Ferreiro E, Teberosky A (1985) La costruzione della lingua scritta nel bambino. [The construction of written language in children]. Giunti Barbera, Firenze
Friedman NP, Miyake A, Young SE, DeFries JC, Corley RP, Hewitt JK (2008) Individual differences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin. J Exp Psychol Gen 137:201–225. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.201
Hulme C, Stuart G, Brown GDA, Morin C (2003) High- and low-frequency words are recalled equally well in alternating lists: evidence for associative effects in serial recall. J Mem Lang 49:500–518. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03),00096-2
Jefferies E, Frankish CR, Lambon Ralph MA (2006) Lexical and semantic binding in verbal short-term memory. J Mem Lang 54:81–98. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.08.001
Jerwen J, James AW (1999) Memory representation of alphabetic position and interval information. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 25:680–701. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.25.3.680
Klahr D, Chase WJ, Lovelace EA (1983) Structure and process in alphabetic retrieval. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 9:462–477. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.9.3.462
Lendinez C, Pelegrina S, Lechuga MT (2015) Age differences in working memory updating: the role of interference, focus switching and substituting information. Acta Psychol 157:106–113. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.02.015
Morris N, Jones DM (1990) Memory updating in working memory: the role of central executive. Br J Psychol 81:111–121. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02349.x
Oberauer K (2005) Binding and inhibition in working memory: individual and age differences in short term recognition. J Exp Psychol Gen 134:368–387. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.368
Palladino P (2006) The role of interference control in working memory: a study with children at risk of ADHD. Q J Exp Psychol 59:2047–2055. doi:10.1080/17470210600917850
Palladino P, Ferrari M (2013) Interference control in working memory: comparing groups of children with atypical development. Child Neuropsychol 19:37–54. doi:10.1080/09297049.2011.633505
Palladino P, Jarrold C (2008) Do updating tasks involve updating? Evidence from comparisons with immediate serial recall. Q J Exp Psychol 61:392–399. doi:10.1080/17470210701664989
Palladino P, Cornoldi C, De Beni R, Pazzaglia F (2001) Working memory and updating processes in reading comprehension. Mem Cogn 29:344–354. doi:10.3758/BF03194929
Patterson K, Graham N, Hodges JR (1994) The impact of semantic memory loss on phonological representations. J Cogn Neurosci 6:57–69. doi:10.1162/jocn.1994.6.1.57
Ruiz M, Elosua MR, Lechuga MT (2005) Old-fashioned responses in an updating memory task. Q J Exp Psychol 58:887–908
Saint-Aubin J, Ouellette D, Poirier M (2005) Semantic similarity and immediate serial recall: Is there an effect on all trials? Psychon Bull Rev 12:171–177. doi:10.3758/BF03196364
Schmiedek F, Hildebrand A, Lövdén M, Wilhelm O, Lindenberger U (2009) Complex span versus updating tasks of working memory: the gap is not that deep. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 35:1089–1096. doi:10.1037/a0015730
Service E, Maury S, Luotoniemi E (2005) Forgetting and redintegration of consonants and vowels in pseudoword lists. Memory 13:340–348. doi:10.1080/09658210344000413
Thorn A, Frankish C (2005) Long-term knowledge effects on serial recall of nonwords are not exclusively lexical. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 31:729–735. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.729
Thorn SC, Gathercole SE, Frankish CR (2005) Redintegration and the benefits of long-term knowledge in verbal short-term memory: an evaluation of Schweickert’s (1993) multinomial processing tree model. Cogn Psychol 50:133–158. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.07.001
Tulving E (1972) Episodic and semantic memory. In: Tulving E, Donaldson W (eds) Organization of memory. Academic Press, New York, pp 381–402
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handling Editor: Juan Lupianez, University of Granada.
Reviewers: Carlos Gómez Ariza, University of Jaén, and an anonymous reviewer.
Appendix
Appendix
A mixed ANOVA with strength (strong, weak) and trial (experimental, control) as within-subject factors, and association (lexical, nonlexical) as between-subjects factors was conducted on the mean number of error by condition. In Table 3, we report the mean number of errors by condition.
The strength did not reach significance, F(1, 46) = .13, partial η 2 = .003, p = .72. The trial did not reach significance, as well, F(1, 46) = .078, partial η 2 = .002, p = .78. Similarly, the between-subjects factor of association did not show significance, F(1, 46) = .33, partial η 2 = .007, p = .57.
We found a marginal significance for the interaction between strength and trial, F(1, 46) = 4.13, partial η 2 = .082, p = .068. However, this was further analyzed. Paired sample t tests showed that strong associations did not differ between control (M = 6.27) and experimental trials (M = 6.90), t(47) = 1.78, p = .083. Likewise, weak associations did not differ between control (M = 6.90) and experimental trials (M = 6.42), t(47) = 1.20, p = .235. In control trials, strong (M = 6.27) and weak (M = 6.90) associations were comparable, t(47) = 1.92, p = .081. Similarly, in experimental trials, strong (M = 6.90) and weak associations (M = 6.42) were fully comparable, t(47) = 1.35, p = .183.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Artuso, C., Palladino, P. Modulation of working memory updating: Does long-term memory lexical association matter?. Cogn Process 17, 49–57 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0735-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0735-4