Classifying retrieval strategies as a function of working memory

Abstract

Strategy selection may help explain performance differences between individuals with high working memory capacity (HWMs) and low working memory capacity (LWMs) (Budd, Whitney, & Turley, (Memory & Cognition, 23, 735-748 1995); Cokely, Kelley, & Gilchrist, (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 991-997 2006). We compared the independent and spontaneous strategy use of HWMs and LWMs during a category fluency (retrieval) task that required participants to retrieve animal names. HWMs were more successful at the fluency task under normal conditions, but under increased cognitive load, there were no WM-related performance differences. One strategy (i.e., retrieving animals according to their scientific classification) significantly aided performance, irrespective of cognitive load. Under normal conditions, HWMs were more likely to use the effective strategy; however, under load, WM did not predict strategy use. Use of the classification strategy was more strongly related to retrieval performance than was WM. These results suggest that retrieval strategy use is related to WM capacity, and that employing a successful strategy may make up for WM disadvantages during a demanding retrieval task.

Working memory capacity and retrieval from long-term memory: the role of controlled search

“…Furthermore, examining the nature of the items retrieved suggested that high-and low-WMC individuals tended to retrieve in similar fashions, in that high-and low-WMC individuals retrieved similar proportions of items from each of the different categories. Finally, although high-and low-WMC individuals reported using very similar strategies overall, high-WMC individuals tended to rely more on their knowledge base to engage in general-to-specific searches than did low-WMC individuals, and low-WMC individuals were more likely than high-WMC individuals to engage in a random search in which items were passively retrieved (see also Schelble et al, 2012). Collectively, these results suggest that high-WMC individuals are more likely to use specific search strategies (as opposed to no strategy) than are low-WMC individuals, which helps in the self-generation of cues to search, resulting in more recalled items overall and more clusters of related items.…”

“…Furthermore, this information was used to determine the different types of contexts (e.g., pets, farm animals, or zoo animals) that participants might use in recalling animals, as well as the relative proportions with which different contexts get searched. Finally, following the coding of each response, participants filled out a questionnaire regarding the various search strategies that they used to perform the fluency task (see also Schelble et al, 2012). Note that although prior work had investigated the relation between WMC and performance on this type of task, the prior work had not specifically examined the nature of the clusters generated, nor potential WMC differences in search strategies.…”

“…If so, does this impact how individuals search their LTM systems? Some recent work by Schelble, Therriault, and Miller (2012) has suggested that high-and low-WMC individuals differ in the use of retrieval strategies in fluency tasks and that these differences partially accounted for differences in recall levels, but more work is needed to examine these differences and whether differences in strategies also account for differences in other aspects of recall (such as the number of clusters generated). Likewise, if the generation of cues used to conduct the search is important and generation is facilitated in high-WMC individuals, then these individuals ought to retrieve items in clusters to a greater degree than do low-WMC individuals.…”

Parietal Contributions to Visual Working Memory Depend on Task Difficulty

“…Low WM span individuals are less able to ignore distracters www.frontiersin.org (Unsworth, 2007), rely on context to recall items, and have fewer attentional resources (Conway and Engle, 1996;Kane et al, 2001;Unsworth and Spillers, 2010). Recent research has shown that high WM capacity participants adopted more efficient strategies in a category naming task compared to low WM capacity participants (Schelble et al, 2012). Importantly, however, when instructed to use the same strategy as the high WM capacity participants the low WM capacity participants performed just as well.…”

Enclothed Cognition and Controlled Attention during Insight Problem-Solving

“…Indeed, it is thought that the ability to keep memory and attention organized around relevant information drives the positive relationship between WMC and performance on a wide range of skills (Shipstead et al, 2014;Unsworth et al, 2014). Research demonstrates that individuals initially prefer, or are biased towards, using these complex strategies when they have the attentional resources to do so (DeCaro & Beilock, 2010;Schelble, Therriault, & Miller, 2012). For example, higher WMC individuals tend to look for patterns in random sequences (Wolford, Newman, Miller, & Wig, 2004), and continue to use complex, time-consuming algorithmic problem-solving approaches when simpler, more efficient strategies are available (Beilock & DeCaro, 2007;DeCaro, Thomas, & Beilock, 2008).…”