The Experts below are selected from a list of 240 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Joshua K. Hartshorne - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Visual working memory capacity and Proactive Interference.
PloS one, 2008Co-Authors: Joshua K. HartshorneAbstract:Background: Visual working memory capacity is extremely limited and appears to be relatively immune to practice effects or the use of explicit strategies. The recent discovery that visual working memory tasks, like verbal working memory tasks, are subject to Proactive Interference, coupled with the fact that typical visual working memory tasks are particularly conducive to Proactive Interference, suggests that visual working memory capacity may be systematically under-estimated. Methodology/Principal Findings: Working memory capacity was probed behaviorally in adult humans both in laboratory settings and via the Internet. Several experiments show that although the effect of Proactive Interference on visual working memory is significant and can last over several trials, it only changes the capacity estimate by about 15%. Conclusions/Significance: This study further confirms the sharp limitations on visual working memory capacity, both in absolute terms and relative to verbal working memory. It is suggested that future research take these limitations into account in understanding differences across a variety of tasks between human adults, prelinguistic infants and nonlinguistic animals.
Steven J. Luck - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Proactive Interference does not meaningfully distort visual working memory capacity estimates in the canonical change detection task.
Frontiers in psychology, 2012Co-Authors: Po-han Lin, Steven J. LuckAbstract:The change detection task has become a standard method for estimating the storage capacity of visual working memory. Most researchers assume that this task isolates the properties of an active short-term storage system that can be dissociated from long-term memory systems. However, long-term memory storage may influence performance on this task. In particular, memory traces from previous trials may create Proactive Interference that sometimes leads to errors, thereby reducing estimated capacity. Consequently, the capacity of visual working memory may be higher than is usually thought, and correlations between capacity and other measures of cognition may reflect individual differences in Proactive Interference rather than individual differences in the capacity of the short-term storage system. Indeed, previous research has shown that change detection performance can be influenced by Proactive Interference under some conditions. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the canonical version of the change detection task – in which the to-be-remembered information consists of simple, briefly presented features – is influenced by Proactive Interference. Two experiments were conducted using methods that ordinarily produce substantial evidence of Proactive Interference, but no Proactive Interference was observed. Thus, the canonical version of the change detection task can be used to assess visual working memory capacity with no meaningful influence of Proactive Interference.
Karl K. Szpunar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Testing protects against Proactive Interference in face–name learning
Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2011Co-Authors: Yana Weinstein, Kathleen B. Mcdermott, Karl K. SzpunarAbstract:Learning face–name pairings at a social function becomes increasingly more difficult the more individuals one meets. This phenomenon is attributable to Proactive Interference—the negative influence of prior learning on subsequent learning. Recent evidence suggests that taking a memory test can alleviate Proactive Interference in verbal list learning paradigms. We apply this technique to face–name pair learning. Participants studied four lists of 12 face–name pairings and either attempted to name the 12 faces just studied after every list or did not. Recall attempts after every list improved learning of the fourth list by over 100%. Moreover, no reduction in learning of face–name pairings occurred from list 1 to list 4 for participants who attempted to name studied faces between lists. These results suggest that testing oneself on the names of a group of new acquaintances before moving on to the next group is an effective mnemonic technique for social functions.
-
testing protects against Proactive Interference in face name learning
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2011Co-Authors: Yana Weinstein, Kathleen B. Mcdermott, Karl K. SzpunarAbstract:Learning face–name pairings at a social function becomes increasingly more difficult the more individuals one meets. This phenomenon is attributable to Proactive Interference—the negative influence of prior learning on subsequent learning. Recent evidence suggests that taking a memory test can alleviate Proactive Interference in verbal list learning paradigms. We apply this technique to face–name pair learning. Participants studied four lists of 12 face–name pairings and either attempted to name the 12 faces just studied after every list or did not. Recall attempts after every list improved learning of the fourth list by over 100%. Moreover, no reduction in learning of face–name pairings occurred from list 1 to list 4 for participants who attempted to name studied faces between lists. These results suggest that testing oneself on the names of a group of new acquaintances before moving on to the next group is an effective mnemonic technique for social functions.
-
testing during study insulates against the buildup of Proactive Interference
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 2008Co-Authors: Karl K. Szpunar, Kathleen B. Mcdermott, Henry L RoedigerAbstract:Recent interest in the benefits of retrieval practice on long-term retention—the testing effect— has spawned a considerable amount of research toward understanding the underlying nature of this ubiquitous memory phenomenon. Taking a test may benefit retention through both direct means (engaging appropriate retrieval processes) and indirect means (fostering directed study). Here the authors report 4 experiments demonstrating a novel benefit of testing. Extended study sessions cause a buildup of Proactive Interference, but interpolating tests during the study sequence insulates against this negative influence. These findings highlight a unique benefit of testing and have important implications for study strategies.
David Sutterer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The role of long-term memory in a test of visual working memory: Proactive facilitation but no Proactive Interference.
Journal of experimental psychology. Learning memory and cognition, 2016Co-Authors: Klaus Oberauer, Edward Awh, David SuttererAbstract:We report 4 experiments examining whether associations in visual working memory are subject to Proactive Interference from long-term memory (LTM). Following a long-term learning phase in which participants learned the colors of 120 unique objects, a working memory (WM) test was administered in which participants recalled the precise colors of 3 concrete objects in an array. Each array in the WM test consisted of 1 old (previously learned) object with a new color (old-mismatch), 1 old object with its old color (old-match), and 1 new object. Experiments 1 to 3 showed that WM performance was better in the old-match condition than in the new condition, reflecting a beneficial contribution from LTM. In the old-mismatch condition, participants sometimes reported colors associated with the relevant shape in LTM, but the probability of successful recall was equivalent to that in the new condition. Thus, information from LTM only intruded in the absence of reportable information in WM. Experiment 4 tested for, and failed to find, Proactive Interference from the preceding trial in the WM test: Performance in the old-mismatch condition, presenting an object from the preceding trial with a new color, was equal to performance with new objects. Experiment 5 showed that long-term memory for object-color associations is subject to Proactive Interference. We conclude that the exchange of information between LTM and WM appears to be controlled by a gating mechanism that protects the contents of WM from Proactive Interference but admits LTM information when it is useful. (PsycINFO Database Record
Po-han Lin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Proactive Interference does not meaningfully distort visual working memory capacity estimates in the canonical change detection task.
Frontiers in psychology, 2012Co-Authors: Po-han Lin, Steven J. LuckAbstract:The change detection task has become a standard method for estimating the storage capacity of visual working memory. Most researchers assume that this task isolates the properties of an active short-term storage system that can be dissociated from long-term memory systems. However, long-term memory storage may influence performance on this task. In particular, memory traces from previous trials may create Proactive Interference that sometimes leads to errors, thereby reducing estimated capacity. Consequently, the capacity of visual working memory may be higher than is usually thought, and correlations between capacity and other measures of cognition may reflect individual differences in Proactive Interference rather than individual differences in the capacity of the short-term storage system. Indeed, previous research has shown that change detection performance can be influenced by Proactive Interference under some conditions. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the canonical version of the change detection task – in which the to-be-remembered information consists of simple, briefly presented features – is influenced by Proactive Interference. Two experiments were conducted using methods that ordinarily produce substantial evidence of Proactive Interference, but no Proactive Interference was observed. Thus, the canonical version of the change detection task can be used to assess visual working memory capacity with no meaningful influence of Proactive Interference.
