No abstract

No abstract

There has been considerable controversy in recent years as to whether information held in working memory (WM) is rapidly forgotten or automatically transferred to long-term memory (LTM). Although visual WM capacity is very limited, we appear able to store a virtually infinite amount of information in visual LTM. Still, LTM retrieval often fails. Some view visual WM as a mental sketchpad that is wiped clean when new information enters, but not a consistent precursor of LTM. Others view the WM and LTM systems as inherently linked. Distinguishing between these possibilities has been difficult, as attempts to directly manipulate the active holding of information in visual WM has typically introduced various confounds. Here, we capitalized on the WM system's capacity limitation to control the likelihood that visual information was actively held in WM. Our young-adult participants (N = 103) performed a WM task with unique everyday items, presented in groups of two, four, six, or eight items. Presentation time was adjusted according to the number of items. Subsequently, we tested participants' LTM for items from the WM task. LTM was better for items presented originally within smaller WM set sizes, indicating that WM limitations contribute to subsequent LTM failures, and that holding items in WM enhances LTM encoding. Our results suggest that a limit in WM capacity contributes to an LTM encoding bottleneck for trial-unique familiar objects, with a relatively large effect size.

Despite being the prototypical test of short-term/working memory, immediate serial recall is affected by numerous lexical and long-term memory factors. Within this large literature, very few studies have examined whether performance on the task is affected by valence, the extent to which a word is viewed as positive or negative. Whereas the NEVER model (Bowen, Kark, & Kensinger, 2018) makes the general prediction that negative words will be remembered better than positive words, two previous studies using serial recall have reported that positive words are better remembered than negative words. Three experiments reassessed whether valence affects immediate serial recall using stimuli equated on multiple dimensions, including both arousal and dominance. Over the 3 experiments, with 3 different sets of stimuli, we found no differences in either accuracy or various error measures as a function of valence. The data suggest that there is no effect of valence on an immediate serial recall task when potentially confounding dimensions are controlled. Public Significance StatementValence refers to whether a word is generally viewed as positive or negative and is thought to affect memory. However, when positive and negative words were equated on other dimensions known to affect memory, including frequency and semantic relatedness, there was no difference in memory performance on a commonly used measure of STM, serial recall.