Unloading and reloading working memory: Attending to one item frees capacity.

Abstract

During the retention interval of a working memory task, presenting a retro-cue directs attention to 1 of the items in working memory. Testing the cued item leads to faster and more accurate responses. We contrasted 5 explanations of this benefit: (a) removal of noncued items, (b) strengthening of the cued item, (c) protection from probe interference, (d) protection from degradation, and (e) prioritization during the decision process. Experiment 1 showed that retro-cues reduced the set size effect in a visual recognition task, and did so increasingly with more time available to use the retro-cue. This finding is predicted only by Hypotheses 1 and 2. Hypotheses 3 through 5 were ruled out as explanations of the retro-cue benefit in this experiment. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants encoded 2 sequentially presented memory sets. In half of the trials, 1 item from the first set was retro-cued during the interset interval. Retro-cues improved memory for the second set. This reloading benefit is predicted only by the removal hypothesis: Irrelevant contents are removed from working memory, freeing capacity to encode new contents. Experiment 3 also yielded evidence that strengthening of the cued item might contribute to the retro-cue effect.

The reliability of retro-cues determines the fate of noncued visual working memory representations

“…Our results suggest that attentional redistribution is performed mostly for highly reliable cues (as in the 80 %-valid cue condition in the present study) and that without being attended, VWM representations are vulnerable to interference and/or decay-consistent with earlier claims (Astle et al, 2012;Makovski & Jiang, 2007;Makovski et al, 2008;Matsukura et al, 2007;Pertzov et al, 2013;van Moorselaar, Gunseli, et al, 2014). Another possibility is that noncued items are actively removed from memory when cues are highly reliable, since this would also result in significant invalidity costs (Kuo et al, 2012;Souza et al, 2014;Williams & Woodman, 2012). Considering that previous research has provided support for both mechanisms, we believe that both may occur.…”

A retroactive spatial cue improved VSTM capacity in mild cognitive impairment and medial temporal lobe amnesia but not in healthy older adults

“…Since the initial retrocue work was published over ten years ago, there has been debate in the literature as to the precise mechanisms at play (Gazzaley & Nobre, 2012;Gozenman, Tanoue, Metoyer, & Berryhill, 2014;Griffin & Nobre, 2003;Kuo, et al, 2014;Lepsien, et al, 2005;Makovski & Jiang, 2007Makovski, Sussman, & Jiang, 2008;Pinto, Sligte, Shapiro, & Lamme, 2013;Sligte, Scholte, & Lamme, 2008;Souza, Rerko, & Oberauer, 2014). One suggestion is that the retrocue works by reducing inter-item interference -focusing attention on one critical item during the delay period enhances memory for that critical item by releasing memory interference from other items (Souza, et al, 2014).…”

Multiple modes of clearing one's mind of current thoughts: Overlapping and distinct neural systems

“…For example, one might stop thinking about the telephone number of the local pizza parlor and replace it with thinking about the pizza toppings to be ordered (e.g., Tomlinson et al, 2009). Another way to remove information is to specifically target the current thought as one to be cleared, avoided, or removed from the focus of attention (e.g., Souza et al, 2014). For example, when dieting and in the grocery store, one might try to specifically not think about chocolate cake.…”