Cargando…

Cognitive Control, Not Time, Determines the Status of Items in Working Memory

Despite the fact that multiple items can be held in working memory (WM), it is often the case that only one of these is relevant for guiding in-the-moment behavior. Therefore, understanding how priority is established and controlled in WM is an important problem. Data from Rose et al. (2016) have pr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fulvio, Jacqueline M., Postle, Bradley R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Ubiquity Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7147683/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32292872
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.98
_version_ 1783520464148103168
author Fulvio, Jacqueline M.
Postle, Bradley R.
author_facet Fulvio, Jacqueline M.
Postle, Bradley R.
author_sort Fulvio, Jacqueline M.
collection PubMed
description Despite the fact that multiple items can be held in working memory (WM), it is often the case that only one of these is relevant for guiding in-the-moment behavior. Therefore, understanding how priority is established and controlled in WM is an important problem. Data from Rose et al. (2016) have provided evidence that although neuroimaging evidence for an active trace of an “unprioritized memory item” (UMI) held in WM drops to baseline levels, evidence for its retention in WM can be “reactivated” by a single pulse of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Critically, this TMS-reactivation effect was specific to the first delay period of a dual serial retrocue (DSR) task, when the UMI could be needed for the trial’s second memory probe, and was not observed during the second delay period, when the uncued item was no longer needed (i.e., when it is an “irrelevant memory item” [IMI]). A problem for the interpretation of these results, however, is that the status of the UMI/IMI was confounded with time spent in WM, as well as with the number of intervening cognitive operations. Here, we report data from a follow-up study designed to replicate the findings Rose et al. (2016) and to add a condition that unconfounds time-since-sample-presentation and UMI/IMI status. The results indicate that the TMS-reactivation effect is, indeed, an index of status in WM (UMI vs. IMI), and not a mere consequence of time elapsed since sample presentation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7147683
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Ubiquity Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71476832020-04-14 Cognitive Control, Not Time, Determines the Status of Items in Working Memory Fulvio, Jacqueline M. Postle, Bradley R. J Cogn Data Report Despite the fact that multiple items can be held in working memory (WM), it is often the case that only one of these is relevant for guiding in-the-moment behavior. Therefore, understanding how priority is established and controlled in WM is an important problem. Data from Rose et al. (2016) have provided evidence that although neuroimaging evidence for an active trace of an “unprioritized memory item” (UMI) held in WM drops to baseline levels, evidence for its retention in WM can be “reactivated” by a single pulse of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Critically, this TMS-reactivation effect was specific to the first delay period of a dual serial retrocue (DSR) task, when the UMI could be needed for the trial’s second memory probe, and was not observed during the second delay period, when the uncued item was no longer needed (i.e., when it is an “irrelevant memory item” [IMI]). A problem for the interpretation of these results, however, is that the status of the UMI/IMI was confounded with time spent in WM, as well as with the number of intervening cognitive operations. Here, we report data from a follow-up study designed to replicate the findings Rose et al. (2016) and to add a condition that unconfounds time-since-sample-presentation and UMI/IMI status. The results indicate that the TMS-reactivation effect is, indeed, an index of status in WM (UMI vs. IMI), and not a mere consequence of time elapsed since sample presentation. Ubiquity Press 2020-04-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7147683/ /pubmed/32292872 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.98 Text en Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Data Report
Fulvio, Jacqueline M.
Postle, Bradley R.
Cognitive Control, Not Time, Determines the Status of Items in Working Memory
title Cognitive Control, Not Time, Determines the Status of Items in Working Memory
title_full Cognitive Control, Not Time, Determines the Status of Items in Working Memory
title_fullStr Cognitive Control, Not Time, Determines the Status of Items in Working Memory
title_full_unstemmed Cognitive Control, Not Time, Determines the Status of Items in Working Memory
title_short Cognitive Control, Not Time, Determines the Status of Items in Working Memory
title_sort cognitive control, not time, determines the status of items in working memory
topic Data Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7147683/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32292872
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.98
work_keys_str_mv AT fulviojacquelinem cognitivecontrolnottimedeterminesthestatusofitemsinworkingmemory
AT postlebradleyr cognitivecontrolnottimedeterminesthestatusofitemsinworkingmemory