On the role of interference in short-term retention.

Posner, Michael I.; Konick, Andrew

doi:10.1037/h0023458

Cited by 149 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The resulting overwriting process described by Nairne (1990) and Cowan (2005) would then lead to the construction of new and inappropriate links, leading to incorrect retrievals and recalls. It is even possible that the sheer passage of time increases the probability of this similarity-based interference if the features and the bonds between them are weaker and weaker with time, as Posner and Konick (1966) proposed in the acid-bath theory. 3 As a consequence, although time-related decay and interference constitute two distinct causes of short-term forgetting that are frequently contrasted, they do not necessarily call for different theoretical accounts and models.…”

Section: The Loss Of Information From Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Time and cognitive load in working memory.

Barrouillet¹,

Bernardin²,

Portrat³

et al. 2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

469

716

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the time-based resource-sharing model (P. Barrouillet, S. Bernardin, & V. Camos, 2004), the cognitive load a given task involves is a function of the proportion of time during which it captures attention, thus impeding other attention-demanding processes. Accordingly, the present study demonstrates that the disruptive effect on concurrent maintenance of memory retrievals and response selections increases with their duration. Moreover, the effect on recall performance of concurrent activities does not go beyond their duration insofar as the processes are attention demanding. Finally, these effects are not modality specific, as spatial processing was found to disrupt verbal maintenance. These results suggest a sequential and time-based function of working memory in which processing and storage rely on a single and general purpose attentional resource needed to run executive processes devoted to constructing, maintaining, and modifying ephemeral representations.

show abstract

Section: The Loss Of Information From Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Time and cognitive load in working memory.

Barrouillet¹,

Bernardin²,

Portrat³

et al. 2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

469

716

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, both the source memory task and the critical span task involved sentences, and both the list recall task and the critical span task involved recalling lists of words. A number of experiments have shown that retroactive interference (detrimental effects of subsequent learning) can occur even if the interfering materials are presented in a task different from that used to present the critical materials (Bird & Weaver, 1975;Gibson & Gibson, 1934;Lehr, Frank, & Mattison, 1972;Posner & Konick, 1966). To our knowledge, the current study is the first demonstration of proactive interference (detrimental effects of previous learning) across different tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Working Memory Span: The Effect of Prior Learning

Lustig

Hasher

2002

The American Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work suggests that working memory span (WMS) tasks are not simple measures of the capacity to simultaneously store and process new information. Instead, these measures may be influenced by numerous factors, including proactive interference (PI). The current study examined whether WMS, like other memory tasks, is also influenced by PI from prior memory experiments. Experimentally experienced and naive participants completed a speaking span task. Span scores were lower for experienced than for naive participants, but other cognitive scores were not. In combination with other work, these results suggest that WMS estimates are not pure measures of capacity and may be partially determined by PI.

show abstract

“…Additional evidence argues against the idea that a relative makes the target trace disintegrate more rapidly (Belli et aI., 1992; see also Posner & Kosnick, 1966). The theory predicts that more interference should occur when the relative occurs early in the retention interval, because this allows more time for the trace to disintegrate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%