The Experts below are selected from a list of 76407 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Dominic Guitard - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Dissociating visuo-spatial and verbal working memory: It’s all in the features
Memory & Cognition, 2019Co-Authors: Marie Poirier, James M. Yearsley, Jean Saint-aubin, Claudette Fortin, Geneviève Gallant, Dominic GuitardAbstract:Echoing many of the themes of the seminal work of Atkinson and Shiffrin ( The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2; 89–195, 1968 ), this paper uses the feature model (Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352, 1988 ; Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 18; 251–269, 1990 ; Neath & Nairne, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 2 ; 429–441, 1995 ) to account for performance in working-memory tasks. The Brooks verbal and visuo-spatial matrix tasks were performed alone, with articulatory suppression, or with a spatial suppression task; the results produced the expected dissociation. We used approximate Bayesian computation techniques to fit the feature model to the data and showed that the similarity-based interference process implemented in the model accounted for the data patterns well. We then fit the model to data from Guérard and Tremblay ( 2008 , Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 , 556–569); the latter study produced a double dissociation while calling upon more typical order reconstruction tasks. Again, the model performed well. The findings show that a double dissociation can be modelled without appealing to separate systems for verbal and visuo-spatial processing. The latter findings are significant as the feature model had not been used to model this type of dissociation before; importantly, this is also the first time the model is quantitatively fit to data. For the demonstration provided here, modularity was unnecessary if two assumptions were made: (1) the main difference between spatial and verbal working-memory tasks is the features that are encoded; (2) secondary tasks selectively interfere with primary tasks to the extent that both tasks involve similar features. It is argued that a feature-based view is more parsimonious (see Morey, 2018 , Psychological Bulletin , 144 , 849–883) and offers flexibility in accounting for multiple benchmark effects in the field.
-
Dissociating visuo-spatial and verbal working memory: It’s all in the features
Memory & Cognition, 2019Co-Authors: Marie Poirier, James M. Yearsley, Jean Saint-aubin, Claudette Fortin, Geneviève Gallant, Dominic GuitardAbstract:Echoing many of the themes of the seminal work of Atkinson and Shiffrin ( The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2; 89–195, 1968 ), this paper uses the feature model (Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352, 1988 ; Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 18; 251–269, 1990 ; Neath & Nairne, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 2 ; 429–441, 1995 ) to account for performance in working-memory tasks. The Brooks verbal and visuo-spatial matrix tasks were performed alone, with articulatory suppression, or with a spatial suppression task; the results produced the expected dissociation. We used approximate Bayesian computation techniques to fit the feature model to the data and showed that the similarity-based interference process implemented in the model accounted for the data patterns well. We then fit the model to data from Guérard and Tremblay ( 2008 , Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 , 556–569); the latter study produced a double dissociation while calling upon more typical order reconstruction tasks. Again, the model performed well. The findings show that a double dissociation can be modelled without appealing to separate systems for verbal and visuo-spatial processing. The latter findings are significant as the feature model had not been used to model this type of dissociation before; importantly, this is also the first time the model is quantitatively fit to data. For the demonstration provided here, modularity was unnecessary if two assumptions were made: (1) the main difference between spatial and verbal working-memory tasks is the features that are encoded; (2) secondary tasks selectively interfere with primary tasks to the extent that both tasks involve similar features. It is argued that a feature-based view is more parsimonious (see Morey, 2018 , Psychological Bulletin , 144 , 849–883) and offers flexibility in accounting for multiple benchmark effects in the field.
Marie Poirier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Dissociating visuo-spatial and verbal working memory: It’s all in the features
Memory & Cognition, 2019Co-Authors: Marie Poirier, James M. Yearsley, Jean Saint-aubin, Claudette Fortin, Geneviève Gallant, Dominic GuitardAbstract:Echoing many of the themes of the seminal work of Atkinson and Shiffrin ( The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2; 89–195, 1968 ), this paper uses the feature model (Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352, 1988 ; Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 18; 251–269, 1990 ; Neath & Nairne, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 2 ; 429–441, 1995 ) to account for performance in working-memory tasks. The Brooks verbal and visuo-spatial matrix tasks were performed alone, with articulatory suppression, or with a spatial suppression task; the results produced the expected dissociation. We used approximate Bayesian computation techniques to fit the feature model to the data and showed that the similarity-based interference process implemented in the model accounted for the data patterns well. We then fit the model to data from Guérard and Tremblay ( 2008 , Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 , 556–569); the latter study produced a double dissociation while calling upon more typical order reconstruction tasks. Again, the model performed well. The findings show that a double dissociation can be modelled without appealing to separate systems for verbal and visuo-spatial processing. The latter findings are significant as the feature model had not been used to model this type of dissociation before; importantly, this is also the first time the model is quantitatively fit to data. For the demonstration provided here, modularity was unnecessary if two assumptions were made: (1) the main difference between spatial and verbal working-memory tasks is the features that are encoded; (2) secondary tasks selectively interfere with primary tasks to the extent that both tasks involve similar features. It is argued that a feature-based view is more parsimonious (see Morey, 2018 , Psychological Bulletin , 144 , 849–883) and offers flexibility in accounting for multiple benchmark effects in the field.
-
Dissociating visuo-spatial and verbal working memory: It’s all in the features
Memory & Cognition, 2019Co-Authors: Marie Poirier, James M. Yearsley, Jean Saint-aubin, Claudette Fortin, Geneviève Gallant, Dominic GuitardAbstract:Echoing many of the themes of the seminal work of Atkinson and Shiffrin ( The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2; 89–195, 1968 ), this paper uses the feature model (Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352, 1988 ; Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 18; 251–269, 1990 ; Neath & Nairne, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 2 ; 429–441, 1995 ) to account for performance in working-memory tasks. The Brooks verbal and visuo-spatial matrix tasks were performed alone, with articulatory suppression, or with a spatial suppression task; the results produced the expected dissociation. We used approximate Bayesian computation techniques to fit the feature model to the data and showed that the similarity-based interference process implemented in the model accounted for the data patterns well. We then fit the model to data from Guérard and Tremblay ( 2008 , Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 , 556–569); the latter study produced a double dissociation while calling upon more typical order reconstruction tasks. Again, the model performed well. The findings show that a double dissociation can be modelled without appealing to separate systems for verbal and visuo-spatial processing. The latter findings are significant as the feature model had not been used to model this type of dissociation before; importantly, this is also the first time the model is quantitatively fit to data. For the demonstration provided here, modularity was unnecessary if two assumptions were made: (1) the main difference between spatial and verbal working-memory tasks is the features that are encoded; (2) secondary tasks selectively interfere with primary tasks to the extent that both tasks involve similar features. It is argued that a feature-based view is more parsimonious (see Morey, 2018 , Psychological Bulletin , 144 , 849–883) and offers flexibility in accounting for multiple benchmark effects in the field.
Geneviève Gallant - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Dissociating visuo-spatial and verbal working memory: It’s all in the features
Memory & Cognition, 2019Co-Authors: Marie Poirier, James M. Yearsley, Jean Saint-aubin, Claudette Fortin, Geneviève Gallant, Dominic GuitardAbstract:Echoing many of the themes of the seminal work of Atkinson and Shiffrin ( The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2; 89–195, 1968 ), this paper uses the feature model (Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352, 1988 ; Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 18; 251–269, 1990 ; Neath & Nairne, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 2 ; 429–441, 1995 ) to account for performance in working-memory tasks. The Brooks verbal and visuo-spatial matrix tasks were performed alone, with articulatory suppression, or with a spatial suppression task; the results produced the expected dissociation. We used approximate Bayesian computation techniques to fit the feature model to the data and showed that the similarity-based interference process implemented in the model accounted for the data patterns well. We then fit the model to data from Guérard and Tremblay ( 2008 , Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 , 556–569); the latter study produced a double dissociation while calling upon more typical order reconstruction tasks. Again, the model performed well. The findings show that a double dissociation can be modelled without appealing to separate systems for verbal and visuo-spatial processing. The latter findings are significant as the feature model had not been used to model this type of dissociation before; importantly, this is also the first time the model is quantitatively fit to data. For the demonstration provided here, modularity was unnecessary if two assumptions were made: (1) the main difference between spatial and verbal working-memory tasks is the features that are encoded; (2) secondary tasks selectively interfere with primary tasks to the extent that both tasks involve similar features. It is argued that a feature-based view is more parsimonious (see Morey, 2018 , Psychological Bulletin , 144 , 849–883) and offers flexibility in accounting for multiple benchmark effects in the field.
-
Dissociating visuo-spatial and verbal working memory: It’s all in the features
Memory & Cognition, 2019Co-Authors: Marie Poirier, James M. Yearsley, Jean Saint-aubin, Claudette Fortin, Geneviève Gallant, Dominic GuitardAbstract:Echoing many of the themes of the seminal work of Atkinson and Shiffrin ( The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2; 89–195, 1968 ), this paper uses the feature model (Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352, 1988 ; Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 18; 251–269, 1990 ; Neath & Nairne, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 2 ; 429–441, 1995 ) to account for performance in working-memory tasks. The Brooks verbal and visuo-spatial matrix tasks were performed alone, with articulatory suppression, or with a spatial suppression task; the results produced the expected dissociation. We used approximate Bayesian computation techniques to fit the feature model to the data and showed that the similarity-based interference process implemented in the model accounted for the data patterns well. We then fit the model to data from Guérard and Tremblay ( 2008 , Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 , 556–569); the latter study produced a double dissociation while calling upon more typical order reconstruction tasks. Again, the model performed well. The findings show that a double dissociation can be modelled without appealing to separate systems for verbal and visuo-spatial processing. The latter findings are significant as the feature model had not been used to model this type of dissociation before; importantly, this is also the first time the model is quantitatively fit to data. For the demonstration provided here, modularity was unnecessary if two assumptions were made: (1) the main difference between spatial and verbal working-memory tasks is the features that are encoded; (2) secondary tasks selectively interfere with primary tasks to the extent that both tasks involve similar features. It is argued that a feature-based view is more parsimonious (see Morey, 2018 , Psychological Bulletin , 144 , 849–883) and offers flexibility in accounting for multiple benchmark effects in the field.
Claudette Fortin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Dissociating visuo-spatial and verbal working memory: It’s all in the features
Memory & Cognition, 2019Co-Authors: Marie Poirier, James M. Yearsley, Jean Saint-aubin, Claudette Fortin, Geneviève Gallant, Dominic GuitardAbstract:Echoing many of the themes of the seminal work of Atkinson and Shiffrin ( The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2; 89–195, 1968 ), this paper uses the feature model (Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352, 1988 ; Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 18; 251–269, 1990 ; Neath & Nairne, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 2 ; 429–441, 1995 ) to account for performance in working-memory tasks. The Brooks verbal and visuo-spatial matrix tasks were performed alone, with articulatory suppression, or with a spatial suppression task; the results produced the expected dissociation. We used approximate Bayesian computation techniques to fit the feature model to the data and showed that the similarity-based interference process implemented in the model accounted for the data patterns well. We then fit the model to data from Guérard and Tremblay ( 2008 , Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 , 556–569); the latter study produced a double dissociation while calling upon more typical order reconstruction tasks. Again, the model performed well. The findings show that a double dissociation can be modelled without appealing to separate systems for verbal and visuo-spatial processing. The latter findings are significant as the feature model had not been used to model this type of dissociation before; importantly, this is also the first time the model is quantitatively fit to data. For the demonstration provided here, modularity was unnecessary if two assumptions were made: (1) the main difference between spatial and verbal working-memory tasks is the features that are encoded; (2) secondary tasks selectively interfere with primary tasks to the extent that both tasks involve similar features. It is argued that a feature-based view is more parsimonious (see Morey, 2018 , Psychological Bulletin , 144 , 849–883) and offers flexibility in accounting for multiple benchmark effects in the field.
-
Dissociating visuo-spatial and verbal working memory: It’s all in the features
Memory & Cognition, 2019Co-Authors: Marie Poirier, James M. Yearsley, Jean Saint-aubin, Claudette Fortin, Geneviève Gallant, Dominic GuitardAbstract:Echoing many of the themes of the seminal work of Atkinson and Shiffrin ( The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2; 89–195, 1968 ), this paper uses the feature model (Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352, 1988 ; Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 18; 251–269, 1990 ; Neath & Nairne, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 2 ; 429–441, 1995 ) to account for performance in working-memory tasks. The Brooks verbal and visuo-spatial matrix tasks were performed alone, with articulatory suppression, or with a spatial suppression task; the results produced the expected dissociation. We used approximate Bayesian computation techniques to fit the feature model to the data and showed that the similarity-based interference process implemented in the model accounted for the data patterns well. We then fit the model to data from Guérard and Tremblay ( 2008 , Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 , 556–569); the latter study produced a double dissociation while calling upon more typical order reconstruction tasks. Again, the model performed well. The findings show that a double dissociation can be modelled without appealing to separate systems for verbal and visuo-spatial processing. The latter findings are significant as the feature model had not been used to model this type of dissociation before; importantly, this is also the first time the model is quantitatively fit to data. For the demonstration provided here, modularity was unnecessary if two assumptions were made: (1) the main difference between spatial and verbal working-memory tasks is the features that are encoded; (2) secondary tasks selectively interfere with primary tasks to the extent that both tasks involve similar features. It is argued that a feature-based view is more parsimonious (see Morey, 2018 , Psychological Bulletin , 144 , 849–883) and offers flexibility in accounting for multiple benchmark effects in the field.
Jean Saint-aubin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Dissociating visuo-spatial and verbal working memory: It’s all in the features
Memory & Cognition, 2019Co-Authors: Marie Poirier, James M. Yearsley, Jean Saint-aubin, Claudette Fortin, Geneviève Gallant, Dominic GuitardAbstract:Echoing many of the themes of the seminal work of Atkinson and Shiffrin ( The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2; 89–195, 1968 ), this paper uses the feature model (Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352, 1988 ; Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 18; 251–269, 1990 ; Neath & Nairne, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 2 ; 429–441, 1995 ) to account for performance in working-memory tasks. The Brooks verbal and visuo-spatial matrix tasks were performed alone, with articulatory suppression, or with a spatial suppression task; the results produced the expected dissociation. We used approximate Bayesian computation techniques to fit the feature model to the data and showed that the similarity-based interference process implemented in the model accounted for the data patterns well. We then fit the model to data from Guérard and Tremblay ( 2008 , Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 , 556–569); the latter study produced a double dissociation while calling upon more typical order reconstruction tasks. Again, the model performed well. The findings show that a double dissociation can be modelled without appealing to separate systems for verbal and visuo-spatial processing. The latter findings are significant as the feature model had not been used to model this type of dissociation before; importantly, this is also the first time the model is quantitatively fit to data. For the demonstration provided here, modularity was unnecessary if two assumptions were made: (1) the main difference between spatial and verbal working-memory tasks is the features that are encoded; (2) secondary tasks selectively interfere with primary tasks to the extent that both tasks involve similar features. It is argued that a feature-based view is more parsimonious (see Morey, 2018 , Psychological Bulletin , 144 , 849–883) and offers flexibility in accounting for multiple benchmark effects in the field.
-
Dissociating visuo-spatial and verbal working memory: It’s all in the features
Memory & Cognition, 2019Co-Authors: Marie Poirier, James M. Yearsley, Jean Saint-aubin, Claudette Fortin, Geneviève Gallant, Dominic GuitardAbstract:Echoing many of the themes of the seminal work of Atkinson and Shiffrin ( The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2; 89–195, 1968 ), this paper uses the feature model (Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352, 1988 ; Nairne, Memory & Cognition, 18; 251–269, 1990 ; Neath & Nairne, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 2 ; 429–441, 1995 ) to account for performance in working-memory tasks. The Brooks verbal and visuo-spatial matrix tasks were performed alone, with articulatory suppression, or with a spatial suppression task; the results produced the expected dissociation. We used approximate Bayesian computation techniques to fit the feature model to the data and showed that the similarity-based interference process implemented in the model accounted for the data patterns well. We then fit the model to data from Guérard and Tremblay ( 2008 , Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 , 556–569); the latter study produced a double dissociation while calling upon more typical order reconstruction tasks. Again, the model performed well. The findings show that a double dissociation can be modelled without appealing to separate systems for verbal and visuo-spatial processing. The latter findings are significant as the feature model had not been used to model this type of dissociation before; importantly, this is also the first time the model is quantitatively fit to data. For the demonstration provided here, modularity was unnecessary if two assumptions were made: (1) the main difference between spatial and verbal working-memory tasks is the features that are encoded; (2) secondary tasks selectively interfere with primary tasks to the extent that both tasks involve similar features. It is argued that a feature-based view is more parsimonious (see Morey, 2018 , Psychological Bulletin , 144 , 849–883) and offers flexibility in accounting for multiple benchmark effects in the field.