scholarly journals Embodied working memory during ongoing input streams

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. e0244822
Author(s):  
Nareg Berberian ◽  
Matt Ross ◽  
Sylvain Chartier

Sensory stimuli endow animals with the ability to generate an internal representation. This representation can be maintained for a certain duration in the absence of previously elicited inputs. The reliance on an internal representation rather than purely on the basis of external stimuli is a hallmark feature of higher-order functions such as working memory. Patterns of neural activity produced in response to sensory inputs can continue long after the disappearance of previous inputs. Experimental and theoretical studies have largely invested in understanding how animals faithfully maintain sensory representations during ongoing reverberations of neural activity. However, these studies have focused on preassigned protocols of stimulus presentation, leaving out by default the possibility of exploring how the content of working memory interacts with ongoing input streams. Here, we study working memory using a network of spiking neurons with dynamic synapses subject to short-term and long-term synaptic plasticity. The formal model is embodied in a physical robot as a companion approach under which neuronal activity is directly linked to motor output. The artificial agent is used as a methodological tool for studying the formation of working memory capacity. To this end, we devise a keyboard listening framework to delineate the context under which working memory content is (1) refined, (2) overwritten or (3) resisted by ongoing new input streams. Ultimately, this study takes a neurorobotic perspective to resurface the long-standing implication of working memory in flexible cognition.

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

2020 ◽  
pp. 311-332
Author(s):  
Nicole Hakim ◽  
Edward Awh ◽  
Edward K. Vogel

Visual working memory allows us to maintain information in mind for use in ongoing cognition. Research on visual working memory often characterizes it within the context of its interaction with long-term memory (LTM). These embedded-processes models describe memory representations as existing in three potential states: inactivated LTM, including all representations stored in LTM; activated LTM, latent representations that can quickly be brought into an active state due to contextual priming or recency; and the focus of attention, an active but sharply limited state in which only a small number of items can be represented simultaneously. This chapter extends the embedded-processes framework of working memory. It proposes that working memory should be defined operationally based on neural activity. By defining working memory in this way, the important theoretical distinction between working memory and LTM is maintained, while still acknowledging that they operate together. It is additionally proposed that active working memory should be further subdivided into at least two subcomponent processes that index item-based storage and currently prioritized spatial locations. This fractionation of working memory is based on recent research that has found that the maintenance of information distinctly relies on item-based representations as well as prioritization of spatial locations. It is hoped that this updated framework of the definition of working memory within the embedded-processes model provides further traction for understanding how we maintain information in mind.


Author(s):  
Stoo Sepp ◽  
Steven J. Howard ◽  
Sharon Tindall-Ford ◽  
Shirley Agostinho ◽  
Fred Paas

In 1956, Miller first reported on a capacity limitation in the amount of information the human brain can process, which was thought to be seven plus or minus two items. The system of memory used to process information for immediate use was coined “working memory” by Miller, Galanter, and Pribram in 1960. In 1968, Atkinson and Shiffrin proposed their multistore model of memory, which theorized that the memory system was separated into short-term memory, long-term memory, and the sensory register, the latter of which temporarily holds and forwards information from sensory inputs to short term-memory for processing. Baddeley and Hitch built upon the concept of multiple stores, leading to the development of the multicomponent model of working memory in 1974, which described two stores devoted to the processing of visuospatial and auditory information, both coordinated by a central executive system. Later, Cowan’s theorizing focused on attentional factors in the effortful and effortless activation and maintenance of information in working memory. In 1988, Cowan published his model—the scope and control of attention model. In contrast, since the early 2000s Engle has investigated working memory capacity through the lens of his individual differences model, which does not seek to quantify capacity in the same way as Miller or Cowan. Instead, this model describes working memory capacity as the interplay between primary memory (working memory), the control of attention, and secondary memory (long-term memory). This affords the opportunity to focus on individual differences in working memory capacity and extend theorizing beyond storage to the manipulation of complex information. These models and advancements have made significant contributions to understandings of learning and cognition, informing educational research and practice in particular. Emerging areas of inquiry include investigating use of gestures to support working memory processing, leveraging working memory measures as a means to target instructional strategies for individual learners, and working memory training. Given that working memory is still debated, and not yet fully understood, researchers continue to investigate its nature, its role in learning and development, and its implications for educational curricula, pedagogy, and practice.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lea M. Bartsch ◽  
Vanessa M. Loaiza ◽  
Klaus Oberauer

2003 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 742-742
Author(s):  
Janice M. Keenan ◽  
Jukka Hyönä ◽  
Johanna K. Kaakinen

Ruchkin et al.'s view of working memory as activated long-term memory is more compatible with language processing than models such as Baddeley's, but it raises questions about individual differences in working memory and the validity of domain-general capacity estimates. Does it make sense to refer to someone as having low working memory capacity if capacity depends on particular knowledge structures tapped by the task?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document