scholarly journals The effect of memory load on reaction time in character classification

1972 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blake L. Wattenbarger ◽  
Robert G. Pachellat
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Memory Load ◽  
Character Classification

Effects of memory load on reaction time.

1972 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 232-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. Darley ◽  
R. L. Klatzky ◽  
R. C. Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Memory Load

Working Memory Load Selectively Influences Response Inhibition in a Stop Signal Task

2020 ◽  
pp. 003329412092827
Author(s):  
Leanne Boucher ◽  
Brandi Viparina ◽  
W. Matthew Collins
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Memory Load ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Working Memory Load ◽  
Stop Signal Reaction Time ◽  
Load Conditions

Inhibitory control is a key executive function and has been studied extensively using the stop signal task. By applying a simple race model that posits an independent race between a GO process responsible for initiation of responses and a STOP process responsible for inhibition of responses, one can estimate how long it takes an individual to inhibit an ongoing response, the stop signal reaction time. Here, we examined how stop signal reaction time can be affected by working memory. Participants engaged in a dual task; they completed a stop signal task under low and high working memory load conditions. Working memory capacity was also measured. We found that the STOP process was lengthened in the high, compared to the low, working memory load condition, as evidenced by differences in stop signal reaction time. The GO process was unaffected and working memory capacity could not account for differences across the load conditions. These results indicate that inhibitory control can be influenced by placing demands on working memory.

The Temporal Dynamics of Event Memory: A Stage Analysis of Mnemonic Processing by Man and Macaque

1989 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 356-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey David Lawine
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Temporal Dynamics ◽  
Memory Load ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Species Difference ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Neural Substrates ◽  
Item Recognition Task ◽  
Stage Analysis

Extensive anatomical and psychophysical data suggest that macaques can serve as surrogates for man in studies of the neural substrates of visual mnemonic processing. However, the extent to which mnemonic-mechanisms in macaques can be validly compared to those in man depends critically on the demonstration that the cognitive strategy and temporal dynamics of mnemonic retrieval are congruent For the two species. Seven human and six macaque subjects were tested on identical versions of an item recognition task that required the classification of probe stimuli as positive or negative according to whether or not they were members of a previously defined set of target stimuli. For the human subjects, reaction time increased by an average of 24 msec/target. The macaques were able to respond as accurately as the human subjects, but each additional target resulted in a reaction time increment of only 7 msec. A detailed analysis of the statistical properties of the reaction-time distributions indicated that these data do not reflect a between-species difference in the efficiency of execution of otherwise comparable, serial-exhaustive, retrieval mechanisms. Rather, the data suggest that human subjects engage two memory-load dependent processes before generating a response, while macaques execute only one of these. Additional data indicate that a reaction-time approach toward the analysis of the stages of mnemonic processing can provide new insights into the specific nature of mnemonic deficits induced by brain damage.

Contribution of working memory in parity and proportional judgments

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 176-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakub Szymanik ◽  
Marcin Zajenkowski
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Computational Model ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Memory Load ◽  
Load Condition ◽  
Verification Task ◽  
Six Elements ◽  
Additional Memory

This paper presents experimental evidence on the differences in a sentence–picture verification task under additional memory load between parity and proportional quantifiers. We asked subjects to memorize strings of four or six digits, then to decide whether a quantified sentence was true for a given picture, and finally to recall the initially given string of numbers. The results show that: (a) proportional quantifiers are more difficult than parity quantifiers with respect to reaction time and accuracy; (b) maintaining either four or six elements in working memory has the same effect on the processing of parity quantifiers; (c) however, in the case of proportional quantifiers subjects perform better in the verification tasks under the six-digit load condition, and (d) even though the strings of four numbers were better recalled by subjects after judging parity there is no difference between quantifiers in the case of the six-element condition. We briefly outline two alternative explanations for the observed phenomena rooted in the computational model of quantifier verification and the different theories of working memory.

Reaction Time of Erroneous Responses in the Go/No-Go Paradigm

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (5) ◽  
pp. 314-321
Author(s):  
Yanick Leblanc-Sirois ◽  
Claude M. J. Braun ◽  
Jonathan Elie-Fortier
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Response Inhibition ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Memory Load ◽  
Load Condition ◽  
False Positives ◽  
The Other ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
Trial Probability ◽  
Sequential Matching

Abstract. Reaction time (RT) of erroneous responses in go/no-go tasks tends to be shorter than RT of correct responses. An opposite difference has been reported ( Halperin, Wolf, Greenblatt, & Young, 1991 ) which could be attributed to differences in go trial probability, or to high memory demand. Two experiments aimed here to test these two explanations, a simultaneous matching task with low memory load (Experiment 1), and a sequential matching task with high memory load (Experiment 2). Go trial probability was also manipulated. Short false positive RT was obtained only in the sequential matching task with high go trial probability, while long false positive RT was obtained in the other three conditions. Low go trial probability and high memory load were both found to be sufficient, by themselves, to create long false positives attributable to confusion. Short false positives in the high go trial probability/low memory load condition were attributed to failure of response inhibition.

Negative Set Effects in Character Classification: A Response-Retrieval View of Reaction Time

1977 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Marcel
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Previous Experiment ◽  
Long Term Memory ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Alternative Models ◽  
Response Information ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Character Classification

In most current accounts of character classification, emphasis is laid on the role of the positive set. Reanalysis of a previous experiment (Marcel, 1970) showed that in the constant set procedure, as well as the varied set procedure, when consecutive sets of digits are used, latency to negative probes depends on remoteness from the positive set boundary, except when the positive set consists of only one item. Two further experiments showed that in both the constant-and varied-set procedures, latency to individual negative probes decreased with their frequency, except with positive sets of one item. These data indicate that negatives are not usually classified as such merely by default. Some alternative models to Sternberg's are discussed. It is proposed that when he is able to (always with one-item positive sets) the subject will perform a physical match. Otherwise the probe will access its location in long-term memory, associated with which is appropriate response information. The ease of recovery of that information is emphasized as responsible for variation in latencies.

scholarly journals Reaction Time of Motor Responses in Two-Stimulus Paradigms Involving Deception and Congruity with Varying Levels of Difficulty

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. C. Vendemia ◽  
Robert F. Buzan ◽  
Stephanie L. Simon-Dack
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Memory Load ◽  
Cognitive Model ◽  
Response Type ◽  
Cognitive Mechanisms ◽  
Working Memory Load ◽  
Motor Responses ◽  
Stimulus Salience ◽  
With Memory ◽  
Preliminary Support

Deception research has focused on identifying peripheral nervous system markers while ignoring cognitive mechanisms underlying those markers. Cognitive theorists argue that the process of deception may involve such constructs as attentional capture, working memory load, or perceived incongruity with memory, while psychophysiologists argue for stimulus salience, arousal, and emotion. Three studies were conducted to assess reaction time (RT) in relation to deception, response congruity, and preparedness to deceive. Similar to a semantic verification task, participants evaluated sentences that were either true or false, and then made truthful or deceptive evaluations of the sentence’s base truth-value. Findings indicate that deceptive responses have a longer RT than truthful responses, and that this relationship remains constant across response type and preparedness to deceive. The authors use these findings in preliminary support of a comprehensive cognitive model of deception.

scholarly journals Investigating the Role of Executive Resources across Aesthetic and Non-Aesthetic Judgments

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ionela Bara ◽  
Richard J Binney ◽  
Richard Ramsey
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Memory Load ◽  
Cognitive Architecture ◽  
Cognitive Resources ◽  
Similar Reaction ◽  
Working Memory Load ◽  
Medium Type ◽  
Aesthetic Judgments

Aesthetic judgments dominate much of daily life by guiding how we evaluate objects, people, and experiences in our environment. One key question that remains unanswered is the extent to which more specialised or largely general cognitive resources support aesthetic judgments. To investigate this question in the context of executive resources, we examined the extent to which a central working memory load produces similar or different reaction time interference on aesthetic compared to non-aesthetic judgments. Across three pre-registered experiments that used Bayesian multi-level modelling approaches (N>100 per experiment), we found clear evidence that a central working memory load produces similar reaction time interference on aesthetic judgments relative to non-aesthetic (motion) judgments. We also showed that this similarity in processing across aesthetic versus non-aesthetic judgments holds across variations in the form of art (people vs landscape; Exps. 1-3), medium type (artwork vs photographs; Exp. 2) and load content (art images vs letters; Exps. 1-3). These findings suggest that across a range of experimental contexts, as well as different processing streams in working memory (e.g., visual vs verbal), aesthetic and motion judgments commonly rely on a domain-general executive system, rather than a system that is more specifically tied to aesthetic judgments. In doing so, these findings shine new light on the cognitive architecture that supports aesthetic judgments, as well as how domain-general executive systems operate more generally in cognition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document