Representations in working memory yield interference effects found with externally-triggered representations

Hubbard, Jason; Rigby, Taylor; Godwin, Christine A.; Gazzaley, Adam; Morsella, Ezequiel

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.005

Cited by 4 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Again, our primary aim was to assess whether subjects are capable of performing this task. Our secondary aim was to assess whether the task could yield the kinds of subjective effects that have been found with previous studies (e.g., Hubbard et al, 2013 ; Jantz et al, 2013 ). Such effects would stem from the factor Congruence (i.e., congruent versus incongruent trials): we predicted that, on average, urges to err would be stronger for incongruent than congruent trials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…In one experiment involving working memory ( Hubbard et al, 2013 ), subjects were instructed to hold two stimuli (e.g., the ‘S’ and ‘P’ of the flanker task) in mind until a cue prompted them to respond to one of the two stimuli; in another version ( Hubbard et al, 2013 ), subjects were instructed to respond to the letter in the center of the screen (the target) but to delay responding until presented with a subsequent letter (the distractor), with subjects instructed to disregard the characteristics of distractors and emit only the response associated with the target. (It is important to note that, in this experiment, there was a delay period between the target and the distractor.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It could be that, in the standard (non-catch) trials of the Incongruent condition, the prompt induces interference only because it primes motorically a response that is incongruent with the intended responses. To examine this methodological limitation and for the sake of comparison, we included another condition in which the prompt was not a letter (a dot, as in Hubbard et al, 2013 ), but was associated with the spatial location of a target; in the Incongruent condition, subjects responded to the item that was not cued spatially.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our new paradigm builds incrementally on previous research (e.g., Eriksen and Schultz, 1979 ; Hubbard et al, 2013 ). Thus, it yields the kind of incremental research that is important for progress in the field of psychological science and that does not involve the traditional method of hypothesis testing (see General Discussion and Nosek et al, 2012 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Metacognition of Working Memory Performance: Trial-by-Trial Subjective Effects from a New Paradigm

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigators have begun to examine the fleeting urges and inclinations that subjects experience when performing tasks involving response interference and working memory. Building on this research, we developed a paradigm in which subjects, after learning to press certain buttons when presented with certain letters, are presented with two action-related letters (the memoranda) but must withhold responding (4 s) until cued to emit the response associated with only one of the two letters. In the Congruent condition, the action corresponds to the cue (e.g., memoranda = AB, cue = B, response = B); in the Incongruent condition, the action corresponds to the other item of the memoranda (e.g., memoranda = AB, cue = B, response = A). After each trial, subjects inputted a rating regarding their subjectively experienced “urge to err” on that trial. These introspection-based data revealed that, as found in previous research, urges to err were strongest for incongruent trials. Our findings reveal, first, that subjects can successfully perform this new task, even though it is more complex than that of previous studies, and second, that, in this new paradigm, reliable subjective, metacognitive data can be obtained on a trial-by-trial basis. We hope that our novel paradigm will serve as a foundation for future experimental projects on the relationship between working memory performance and consciousness—an under-explored nexus whose investigation is likely to reveal insights about working memory, cognitive control, and metacognition.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Metacognition of Working Memory Performance: Trial-by-Trial Subjective Effects from a New Paradigm

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 3 The following is based in part on reviews of the literature presented in Morsella and Bargh (2011); Morsella et al (2011) and Hubbard et al (2013). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%