Working memory capacity and dual mechanisms of cognitive control: An experimental-correlational approach

Abstract

Working memory is thought to be strongly related to cognitive control. Recent studies have sought to understand this relationship under the prism of the dual mechanisms of control (DMC) framework, in which cognitive control is thought to operate in two distinct modes: proactive and reactive. Several authors have concluded that a high working memory capacity is associated with a tendency to engage the more effective mechanism of proactive control. However, the predicted pattern of proactive control use has never been observed; correlational evidence is made difficult to interpret by the overall superiority of participants with a high working memory capacity: they tend to perform better even when proactive control should be detrimental. In two experiments, we used an experimental-correlational approach to experimentally induce the use of reactive or proactive control in the AX-CPT. The relation between working memory capacity and performance was unaffected, incompatible with the hypothesis that the better performance of participants with a high working memory capacity in the task is due to their use of proactive control. It remains unclear how individual differences in working memory capacity relate to cognitive control under the DMC framework.

Working memory capacity preferentially enhances implementation of proactive control.

“…With all that said, it must be acknowledged that our conclusions are not unequivocal. In particular, a very recent study using a similar experimental-correlational approach reported null findings, observing that the relationship between WMC and proactive control was not moderated by experimental condition (Rosales et al, 2022). In fact, WMC was unrelated to proactive control performance across baseline, proactive, or reactive conditions.…”

“…Instead, higher WMC was associated with generally faster RTs across all trial types, leading to the contradictory conclusion that WMC may have a domain general influence on performance but is not related to the specific tendency (or ability) to use proactive control. In attempting to reconcile the mixed nature of these findings, it may be valuable to consider several key methodological factors that might differentiate the current study from Rosales et al (2022).…”

“…First, although the proactive control manipulation was essentially identical across the studies, the baseline and reactive conditions differed substantially. Specifically, Rosales et al (2022) used no-go trials to induce reactive control, whereas here we implemented an item-specific cueing approach for reactive control, while including no-go trials across all conditions. As detailed elsewhere (Braver et al, 2021; Tang et al, 2021), the purpose of this change was to explicitly distinguish selective enhancement of reactive control from reduced engagement of proactive control (i.e., the effect of no-go trials)—our baseline condition was therefore equivalent to the reactive condition in Rosales and colleague’s study.…”

The influence of context representations on cognitive control states

“…Finally, it would be beneficial to gather data on a variety of individual difference factors, such as working memory capacity or general control state bias, so as to identify how these factors might interact with context manipulations. In fact, context manipulations may be more or less effective in some sub-groups of participants, particularly considering that high working memory capacity individuals may be associated with a natural tendency to engage proactive control (Rosales et al, 2021 ).…”