Distinct profiles of stimulus specific cortical activity for ignoring distraction during working memory encoding and maintenance, and associations with performance

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Ashton ◽  
André Gouws ◽  
Marcus Glennon ◽  
THEODORE ZANTO ◽  
Steve Tipper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Cortical Activity ◽  
Irrelevant Information ◽  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
Memory Encoding ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Short Time

Abstract Our ability to hold information in mind for a short time (working memory) is separately predicted by our ability to ignore two types of distraction: distraction that occurs while we put information into working memory (encoding) and distraction that occurs while we maintain already encoded information within working memory. This suggests that ignoring these different types of distraction involves distinct mechanisms which separately limit performance. Here we used fMRI to measure category-sensitive cortical activity and probe these mechanisms. The results reveal specific neural mechanisms by which relevant information is remembered and irrelevant information is ignored, which contribute to intra-individual differences in WM performance.

scholarly journals Individual differences in working memory capacity and filtering

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Kyle Robison ◽  
Ashley L. Miller ◽  
Nash Unsworth
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Irrelevant Information ◽  
Constant Number ◽  
Complex Span ◽  
Span Tasks ◽  
Trial Basis ◽  
The Relationship

In three experiments we examined individual differences in working memory (WM) and their relationship with filtering – the selective encoding and maintenance of relevant information in the presence of irrelevant information. While some accounts argue that filtering is an important element of individual differences in WM (McNab & Klingberg, 2008; Robison & Unsworth, 2017a; Unsworth & Robison, 2016; Vogel, McCollough, & Machizawa, 2005), recent investigations have challenged this view (Mall, Morey, Wolff, & Lehnert, 2014; Shipstead, Lindsey, Marshall, & Engle, 2014). In all three experiments, we measured WM span with three complex span tasks and then had participants complete a visual WM task with a filtering component. In Experiment 1, participants were instructed to remember the orientation of relevant items (red rectangles) and ignore irrelevant items (blue rectangles). In Experiment 2, the color of relevant items changed randomly on a trial-by-trial basis. In Experiment 3, we presented a constant number of items. On half of trials, participants were told which color item would be tested before each trial. On the other half of trials, participants received no such cue. In situations where filtering was especially required, WM span accounted for a significant portion of variance in filtering trials beyond shared variance between filtering and non-filtering trials. We argue that filtering is one of several control processes that gives rise to individual differences in WM, but that the relationship is constrained by the degree to which filtering is demanded by the task.

scholarly journals Early Auditory Evoked Potential Is Modulated by Selective Attention and Related to Individual Differences in Visual Working Memory Capacity

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 2682-2690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan J. Giuliano ◽  
Christina M. Karns ◽  
Helen J. Neville ◽  
Steven A. Hillyard
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Selective Attention ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Auditory Evoked Potential ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Auditory Selective Attention ◽  
Visual Change Detection ◽  
Listening Task

A growing body of research suggests that the predictive power of working memory (WM) capacity for measures of intellectual aptitude is due to the ability to control attention and select relevant information. Crucially, attentional mechanisms implicated in controlling access to WM are assumed to be domain-general, yet reports of enhanced attentional abilities in individuals with larger WM capacities are primarily within the visual domain. Here, we directly test the link between WM capacity and early attentional gating across sensory domains, hypothesizing that measures of visual WM capacity should predict an individual's capacity to allocate auditory selective attention. To address this question, auditory ERPs were recorded in a linguistic dichotic listening task, and individual differences in ERP modulations by attention were correlated with estimates of WM capacity obtained in a separate visual change detection task. Auditory selective attention enhanced ERP amplitudes at an early latency (ca. 70–90 msec), with larger P1 components elicited by linguistic probes embedded in an attended narrative. Moreover, this effect was associated with greater individual estimates of visual WM capacity. These findings support the view that domain-general attentional control mechanisms underlie the wide variation of WM capacity across individuals.

Individual Differences in Value-Directed Remembering

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blake L. Elliott ◽  
Samuel M. McClure ◽  
Gene Arnold Brewer
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Episodic Memory ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Human Memory ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
Memory Encoding ◽  
Capacity Limits

Prioritized encoding and retrieval of valuable information is an essential component of human memory due to capacity limits. Individual differences in value-directed encoding may derive from variability in stimulus valuation, memory encoding, or from strategic abilities related to maintenance in working memory. We collected multiple cognitive ability measures to test whether variation in episodic memory, working memory capacity, or both predict differences in value-directed remembering among a large sample of participants (n=205). Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling was used to assess the contributions of episodic and working memory to value sensitivity in value-directed remembering tasks. Episodic memory ability, but not working memory capacity, was predictive of value-directed remembering. These results suggest that cognitive processes may be differentially related to value-based memory encoding.

Neural Mechanisms of Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity: Observations From Functional Neuroimaging Studies

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 335-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takehiro Minamoto ◽  
Hiroyuki Tsubomi ◽  
Naoyuki Osaka
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Fluid Intelligence ◽  
Functional Neuroimaging ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Individual Variability ◽  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
Related Activity ◽  
Intrinsic Connectivity

Working memory capacity (WMC) indicates an individual’s capability of executive attentional control, which is thought to be critical for general fluid intelligence. Individual variability in WMC has been attributed to the function of the lateral prefrontal cortex (lPFC); however, it is still less clear how the lPFC contributes to individual differences in WMC. Referring to functional neuroimaging studies, we consider three possible neural mechanisms. First, greater task-related activity of the lPFC predicts higher WMC across tasks. Second, a specific task-related functional connectivity also predicts higher WMC. The lPFC consistently forms a part of the connectivity while the coupled region varies depending on tasks. Thus, WMC is reflected by not a fixed but flexible connectivity regulated by the lPFC. Third, distinctive intrinsic connectivity even during resting state is also responsible for individual differences in WMC, with the lPFC seated at a critical hub within the network. These three neural mechanisms differentially contribute to WMC, and therefore, complementarily explain individual differences in WMC.

Evidence of a Processing Advantage for Deservingness-Relevant Information

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-134
Author(s):  
Carolyn L. Hafer ◽  
Caroline E. Drolet ◽  
Emily E. Davis ◽  
Sidney J. Segalowitz ◽  
Elizabeth P. Shulman
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Processing Speed ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Irrelevant Information ◽  
Female Students ◽  
Just World

Abstract. We investigated processing speed for deservingness-relevant versus deservingness-irrelevant information. Female students read stories involving deserved, undeserved, or neutral outcomes. We recorded participants’ reaction time (RT) in processing the outcomes. We also measured individual differences in “belief in a just world” as a proxy for deservingness schematicity. RTs for deserved and undeserved outcomes were faster than for neutral outcomes, B = −8.45, p = .011, an effect that increased the stronger the belief in a just world (e.g., B = −3.18, p = .006). These findings provide novel evidence that the construct of deservingness is central in human social relations, and suggest both universal and particularistic schemas for deservingness.

scholarly journals Common capacity‐limited neural mechanisms of selective attention and spatial working memory encoding

2011 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 827-838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabian Fusser ◽  
David E. J. Linden ◽  
Benjamin Rahm ◽  
Harald Hampel ◽  
Corinna Haenschel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Selective Attention ◽  
Spatial Working Memory ◽  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
Memory Encoding

Exactly how are fluid intelligence, working memory, and executive function related? Cognitive neuroscience approaches to investigating the mechanisms of fluid cognition

2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory C. Burgess ◽  
Todd S. Braver ◽  
Jeremy R. Gray
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Executive Function ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Neuroscience ◽  
Fluid Intelligence ◽  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
Function Form ◽  
Strong Position

Blair proposes that fluid intelligence, working memory, and executive function form a unitary construct: fluid cognition. Recently, our group has utilized a combined correlational–experimental cognitive neuroscience approach, which we argue is beneficial for investigating relationships among these individual differences in terms of neural mechanisms underlying them. Our data do not completely support Blair's strong position.

scholarly journals How Individual Differences in Working Memory and Source Monitoring matter in Susceptibility to False Memory

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
LaTasha R Holden ◽  
Andrew R. A. Conway ◽  
Kerri A. Goodwin
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Source Monitoring ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
False Memories ◽  
Word List ◽  
Irrelevant Information ◽  
Eyewitness Testimony ◽  
Goal Maintenance

Using the DRM word list paradigm (Roediger & McDermott, 1995) we investigated the role of individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) and source monitoring (SM) ability in protection from false memories (FM) in recall and recognition. Both spreading activation and monitoring are cognitive processes associated with working memory (Anderson, 1983; Cantor & Engle, 1993), and previous research demonstrates working memory’s relation to goal maintenance (Kane & Engle, 2003) and importance for withholding irrelevant information (Conway & Engle, 1994). However, whether higher WMC constitutes activation or monitoring and predicts increased or decreased FM production respectively, remains inconclusive (Watson et al., 2005; Peters et al., 2007; Bixter & Daniel, 2013). When considering SM ability, a relationship has been found between WMC and FM in recall, suggesting that SM mediates this relation (Unsworth & Brewer, 2010). Other work suggests that SM and WMC interact based on the role of memory monitoring in constraining task irrelevant information (Rose, 2013; Lilienthal et al., 2015). From an activation-monitoring perspective (Gallo, 2010), we investigated individual differences in WMC and SM predicting FM in recall and recognition, testing whether the relationships are additive or interactive. Our findings support moderation, suggesting that when SM ability is too high, working memory cannot work as well to monitor and constrain activation in order to reduce FM. Only when WMC was higher and SM was lower did we show a predicted decrease in FM during recognition. This work suggests that protecting mental resources in WMC is more important for constraining FM production than SM ability and we consider the implications for real world false memories and eyewitness testimony.

scholarly journals The neural mechanisms of active removal from working memory

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiangang Shan ◽  
Bradley Postle
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
Fmri Data ◽  
Similarity Analysis ◽  
Functional Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Flexible Control ◽  
Mental Context ◽  
New Information

The ability to frequently update the contents working memory (WM) is vital for the flexible control of behavior. Whether there even exists a mechanism for the active removal of information from working memory, however, remains poorly understood. In this Registered Report we will test the predictions of models for two different (and not mutually exclusive) mechanisms of active removal: adaptation-hijacking and mental-context shifting. We will collect functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data while subjects perform a novel “ABC-retrocuing” task designed to elicit two modes of removal, active or passive (Shan & Postle, Registered Report). The adaptation-hijacking model posits an adaptation-like modification of perceptual circuits combined with a weak activation of the to-be-removed item. Its predictions will be assessed by using multivariate inverted encoding modeling (IEM) and photic “pings” to assay the state of feature-selective encoding channels and of activity-silent representations under active-removal versus passive-removal conditions. A second model – “working memory episodic memory” (WMEM) – posits that interference from no-longer-relevant information is minimized by making the mental context associated with new information dissimilar from that associated with the to-be-“removed” information. This will be tested by using representational similarity analysis (RSA) to compare the rate of contextual drift under active-removal versus passive-removal conditions.

scholarly journals Oscillation-driven memory encoding, maintenance and recall in an entorhinal-hippocampal circuit model

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomoki Kurikawa ◽  
Kenji Mizuseki ◽  
Tomoki Fukai
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Spatial Working Memory ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Memory Encoding ◽  
Hippocampal Ca1 ◽  
Deep Layers ◽  
Local Circuits ◽  
Experimental Data Analysis ◽  
The Brain

SummaryDuring the execution of working memory tasks, task-relevant information is processed by local circuits across multiple brain regions. How this multi-area computation is conducted by the brain remains largely unknown. To explore such mechanisms in spatial working memory, we constructed a neural network model involving parvalbumin-positive, somatostatin-positive and vasoactive intestinal polypeptide-positive interneurons in the hippocampal CA1 and the superficial and deep layers of medial entorhinal cortex (MEC). Our model is based on a hypothesis that cholinergic modulations differently regulate information flows across CA1 and MEC at memory encoding, maintenance and recall during delayed nonmatching-to-place tasks. In the model, theta oscillation coordinates the proper timing of interactions between these regions. Furthermore, the model predicts that MEC is engaged in decoding as well as encoding spatial memory, which we confirmed by experimental data analysis. Thus, our model accounts for the neurobiological characteristics of the cross-area information routing underlying working memory tasks.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document