scholarly journals Frequency domain analyses of EEG reveal neural correlates of visual working memory capacity limitations observed during encoding using a full report paradigm.

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Kyle Killebrew ◽  
Candace Peacock ◽  
Gennadiy Gurariy ◽  
Marian Berryhill ◽  
Gideon Caplovitz
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew R. Nassar ◽  
Julie C. Helmers ◽  
Michael J. Frank

AbstractThe nature of capacity limits for visual working memory has been the subject of an intense debate that has relied on models that assume items are encoded independently. Here we propose that instead, similar features are jointly encoded through a “chunking” process to optimize performance on visual working memory tasks. We show that such chunking can: 1) facilitate performance improvements for abstract capacity-limited systems, 2) be optimized through reinforcement, 3) be implemented by center-surround dynamics, and 4) increase effective storage capacity at the expense of recall precision. Human performance on a variant of a canonical working memory task demonstrated performance advantages, precision detriments, inter-item dependencies, and trial-to-trial behavioral adjustments diagnostic of performance optimization through center-surround chunking. Models incorporating center-surround chunking provided a better quantitative description of human performance in our study as well as in a meta-analytic dataset, and apparent differences in working memory capacity across individuals were attributable to individual differences in the implementation of chunking. Our results reveal a normative rationale for center-surround connectivity in working memory circuitry, call for re-evaluation of memory performance differences that have previously been attributed to differences in capacity, and support a more nuanced view of visual working memory capacity limitations: strategic tradeoff between storage capacity and memory precision through chunking contribute to flexible capacity limitations that include both discrete and continuous aspects.


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. 1060
Author(s):  
Marjan Persuh ◽  
Emmanuel Delgado ◽  
Aharon Zarzar

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine V. Barnes-Scheufler ◽  
Caroline Passow ◽  
Lara Rösler ◽  
Jutta S. Mayer ◽  
Viola Oertel ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Impaired working memory is a core cognitive deficit in both bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Its study might yield crucial insights into the underpinnings of both disorders on the cognitive and neurophysiological level. Visual working memory capacity is a particularly promising construct for such translational studies. However, it has not yet been investigated across the full spectrum of both disorders. The aim of our study was to compare the degree of reductions of visual working memory capacity in patients with bipolar disorder (PBD) and patients with schizophrenia (PSZ) using a paradigm well established in cognitive neuroscience. Methods 62 PBD, 64 PSZ, and 70 healthy controls (HC) completed a canonical visual change detection task. Participants had to encode the color of four circles and indicate after a short delay whether the color of one of the circles had changed or not. We estimated working memory capacity using Pashler’s K. Results Working memory capacity was significantly reduced in both PBD and PSZ compared to HC. We observed a small effect size (r = .202) for the difference between HC and PBD and a medium effect size (r = .370) for the difference between HC and PSZ. Working memory capacity in PSZ was also significantly reduced compared to PBD with a small effect size (r = .201). Thus, PBD showed an intermediate level of impairment. Conclusions These findings provide evidence for a gradient of reduced working memory capacity in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, with PSZ showing the strongest degree of impairment. This underscores the importance of disturbed information processing for both bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Our results are compatible with the cognitive manifestation of a neurodevelopmental gradient affecting bipolar disorder to a lesser degree than schizophrenia. They also highlight the relevance of visual working memory capacity for the development of both behavior- and brain-based transdiagnostic biomarkers.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Forsberg ◽  
Dominic Guitard ◽  
Eryn J. Adams ◽  
Duangporn Pattanakul ◽  
Nelson Cowan

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 902-918 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel E. Asp ◽  
Viola S. Störmer ◽  
Timothy F. Brady

Abstract Almost all models of visual working memory—the cognitive system that holds visual information in an active state—assume it has a fixed capacity: Some models propose a limit of three to four objects, where others propose there is a fixed pool of resources for each basic visual feature. Recent findings, however, suggest that memory performance is improved for real-world objects. What supports these increases in capacity? Here, we test whether the meaningfulness of a stimulus alone influences working memory capacity while controlling for visual complexity and directly assessing the active component of working memory using EEG. Participants remembered ambiguous stimuli that could either be perceived as a face or as meaningless shapes. Participants had higher performance and increased neural delay activity when the memory display consisted of more meaningful stimuli. Critically, by asking participants whether they perceived the stimuli as a face or not, we also show that these increases in visual working memory capacity and recruitment of additional neural resources are because of the subjective perception of the stimulus and thus cannot be driven by physical properties of the stimulus. Broadly, this suggests that the capacity for active storage in visual working memory is not fixed but that more meaningful stimuli recruit additional working memory resources, allowing them to be better remembered.


Cognition ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 108 (3) ◽  
pp. 719-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason H. Wong ◽  
Matthew S. Peterson ◽  
James C. Thompson

Psychology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 08 (06) ◽  
pp. 929-937 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoxi Chen ◽  
Bin Li ◽  
Yaozhong Liu

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document