Using electrophysiology to demonstrate that cueing affects long-term memory storage over the short term.
Using electrophysiology to demonstrate that cueing affects long-term memory storage over the short term.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3758/s13423-015-0799-2
复制
发表时间：
2015-10
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Woodman GF
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Maxcey AM;Fukuda K;Song WS;Woodman GF
作为研究工作记忆的研究人员，我们经常假设，当我们提出一个暗示，表明对象将在几秒钟内进行测试时，参与者会在工作记忆中保留一个对象的表征。这直观地解释了相对于没有线索呈现的同一对象，人们对有提示的对象的记忆有多好。然而，这种优越的记忆可能并不完全反映线索物体在工作记忆中的存储。我们测试了线索在一系列物体中呈现的假设，随后进行了短保持间隔和即刻记忆测试，改变了长期记忆处理信息的方式。我们使用一系列被认为反映长期记忆存储的额叶事件相关电位(ERPs)来验证这一假说。我们发现，这些长期记忆的额叶指数对由听觉线索发出信号的对象的任务相关性很敏感，即使当对象频繁重复时，主动干扰很高。我们的发现表明，在工作记忆研究中假设过程纯洁性是有问题的，并证明了频繁的刺激重复无法分离工作记忆机制的作用。
As researchers who study working memory, we often assume that participants keep a representation of an object in working memory when we present a cue that indicates that object will be tested in a couple of seconds. This intuitively accounts for how well people can remember a cued object relative to their memory for that same object presented without a cue. However, it is possible that this superior memory does not purely reflect storage of the cued object in working memory. We tested the hypothesis that cued presented during a stream of objects, followed by a short retention interval and immediate memory test, change how information is handled by long-term memory. We tested this hypothesis using a family of frontal event-related potentials (ERPs) believed to reflect long-term memory storage. We found that these frontal indices of long-term memory were sensitive to the task relevance of objects signaled by auditory cues, even when objects repeat frequently such that proactive interference was high. Our findings indicate the problematic nature of assuming process purity in the study of working memory, and demonstrate how frequent stimulus repetitions fail to isolate the role of working memory mechanisms.