scholarly journals Item-location binding in working memory: Is it hippocampus-dependent?

2014 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
pp. 74-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Allen ◽  
Faraneh Vargha-Khadem ◽  
Alan D. Baddeley
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuri Markov ◽  
Igor Utochkin

Visual working memory (VWM) is prone to interference from stored items competing for its limited capacity. These competitive interactions can arise from different sources. For example, one such source is poor item distinctiveness causing a failure to discriminate between items sharing common features. Another source of interference is imperfect binding, a problem of determining which of the remembered features belonged to which object or which item was in which location. In two experiments, we studied how the conceptual distinctiveness of real-world objects (i.e., whether the objects belong to the same or different basic categories) affects VWM for objects and object-location binding. In Experiment 1, we found that distinctiveness did not affect memory for object identities or for locations, but low-distinctive objects were more frequently reported at “swapped” locations that originally went with different objects. In Experiment 2 we found evidence that the effect of distinctiveness on the object-location swaps was due to the use of categorical information for binding. In particular, we found that observers swapped the location of a tested object with another object from the same category more frequently than with any of the objects from another category. This suggests that observers can use some coarse category-location information when objects are conceptually distinct. Taken together, our findings suggest that object distinction and object-location binding act upon different components of VWM.


2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (5) ◽  
pp. 799-818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina J Howard ◽  
Rebekah Pole ◽  
Paulina Montgomery ◽  
Amanda Woodward ◽  
Duncan Guest ◽  
...  

The extent to which similar capacity limits in visual attention and visual working memory indicate a common shared underlying mechanism is currently still debated. In the spatial domain, the multiple object tracking (MOT) task has been used to assess the relationship between spatial attention and spatial working memory though existing results have been inconclusive. In three dual task experiments, we examined the extent of interference between attention to spatial positions and memory for spatial positions. When the position monitoring task required keeping track of target identities through colour-location binding, we found a moderate detrimental effect of position monitoring on spatial working memory and an ambiguous interaction effect. However, when this task requirement was removed, load increases in neither task were detrimental to the other. The only very moderate interference effect that remained resided in an interaction between load types but was not consistent with shared capacity between tasks—rather it was consistent with content-related crosstalk between spatial representations. Contrary to propositions that spatial attention and spatial working memory may draw on a common shared set of core processes, these findings indicate that for a purely spatial task, perceptual attention and working memory appear to recruit separate core capacity-limited processes.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ansgar D Endress

Our ability to briefly retain information is often limited. Proactive Interference (PI) might contribute to these limitations (e.g., when it is hard to reject items in a recognition test that have appeared recently). In visual Working Memory (WM), spatial information might protect WM against PI, especially if encoding items together with their spatial locations makes item-location combinations less confusable than simple items without a spatial component. Here, I ask (1) if PI is observed for spatially distributed items, (2) if it arises among simple items or among item-location combinations, and (3) if spatial information affects PI at all. I show that PI is reliably observed for spatially distributed items except when it is weak. PI mostly reflects items that appear recently or frequently as memory items, while occurrences as test items play a smaller role, presumably because their temporal context is easier to encode. Through mathematical modeling, I then show that interference occurs among simple items rather than item-location combinations. Finally, to understand the effects of spatial information, I separate the effects of (a) the presence and (b) the predictiveness of spatial information on memory and its susceptibility to PI. Memory is impaired when items are spatially distributed, but, depending on the analysis, unaffected by the predictiveness of spatial information. In contrast, the susceptibility to PI is unaffected by either manipulation. Visual memory is thus impaired by PI for spatially distributed items due to interference from recent memory items (rather than test items or item-location combinations).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document