Working memory updating occurs independently of the need to maintain task-context: accounting for triggering updating in the AX-CPT paradigm

Abstract

Theoretical models suggest that maintenance and updating are two functional states of working memory (WM), which are controlled by a gate between perceptual information and WM representations. Opening the gate enables updating WM with input, while closing it enables keeping the maintained information shielded from interference. However, it is still unclear when gate opening takes place, and what is the external signal that triggers it. A version of the AX-CPT paradigm was used to examine a recent proposal in the literature, suggesting that updating is triggered whenever the maintenance of the context is necessary for task performance (context-dependent tasks). In four experiments using this paradigm, we show that (1) a task-switching cost takes place in both context-dependent and context-independent trials; (2) task-switching is additive to the dependency effect, and (3) unlike switching cost, the dependency effect is not affected by preparation and, therefore, does not reflect context-updating. We suggest that WM updating is likely to be triggered by a simple mechanism that occurs in each trial of the task regardless of whether maintaining the context is needed or not. The implications for WM updating and its relationship to task-switching are discussed.

N–2 repetition leads to a cost within working memory and a benefit outside it

“…Task switching is essentially a special case of WM updating that involves procedural (rather than declarative) material . Accordingly, the prevalence and robustness of n –2 repetition costs in task switching provides tentative and preliminary support for the role of removal in WM updating.…”

Examining the Trainability and Transferability of Working-Memory Gating Policies

“…Task-switching (for reviews, see Kiesel et al 2010;Monsell 2003;Vandierendonck et al 2010) and AX-CPT (e.g., Braver and Cohen 2000;Braver et al 2009;Dreisbach 2016, 2017;Paxton et al 2008) are prominent paradigms to study cognitive control processes, underlying goal-directed and flexible behavior (for reviews see Braver 2012;Gratton et al 2018). Importantly, both the task-switching and AX-CPT paradigms were suggested to involve gating processes (Braver and Cohen 2000;D'Ardenne et al 2012;Kessler 2017;Kessler et al 2017;Rougier and O'Reilly 2002), making them adequate transfer tasks for the current study.…”

The Role of Working Memory Gating in Task Switching: A Procedural Version of the Reference-Back Paradigm

“…Previous results using this paradigm (Rac-Lubashevsky and Kessler, 2016a , b ; Rac-Lubashevsky et al, 2017 ) demonstrated that (a) performance in reference trials is slower than in comparison trials, supporting the additional updating process required in the former, and (b) switching between the two trial types is associated with an additional cost, reflecting the time taken to open or close the gate to WM. This cost implies that the state of gate tends to remain constant, either open or closed, until a change is required (see also Kessler et al, 2017 , for a similar finding using the AX-CPT task).…”

“…In these situations, it is possible to block irrelevant information and preserve relevant one by changing the state of the gate over time, while alternating between receiving relevant and irrelevant information. Tasks that presumably involve temporally-based gating include the AX-CPT task (Braver and Cohen, 2000 ; D'Ardenne et al, 2012 ; Kessler et al, 2017 ), attentional blink (Raymond et al, 1992 ), and complex span (Daneman and Carpenter, 1980 ). As will be elaborated below, the goal of the present work is to examine the role of gating in task switching, and specifically the relationship between the process of gate opening to that of switching a task-set.…”