Showing papers by "Alan D. Baddeley published in 2011"

Eyeclosure helps memory by reducing cognitive load and enhancing visualisation

Abstract: Closing the eyes helps memory. We investigated the mechanisms underlying the eyeclosure effect by exposing 80 eyewitnesses to different types of distraction during the witness interview: blank screen (control), eyes closed, visual distraction, and auditory distraction. We examined the cognitive load hypothesis by comparing any type of distraction (visual or auditory) with minimal distraction (blank screen or eyes closed). We found recall to be significantly better when distraction was minimal, providing evidence that eyeclosure reduces cognitive load. We examined the modality-specific interference hypothesis by comparing the effects of visual and auditory distraction on recall of visual and auditory information. Visual and auditory distraction selectively impaired memory for information presented in the same modality, supporting the role of visualisation in the eyeclosure effect. Analysis of recall in terms of grain size revealed that recall of basic information about the event was robust, whereas recall of specific details was prone to both general and modality-specific disruptions.

Working memory and self-regulation

Abstract: The purpose of this chapter is to apply insights from cognitive psychology on working memory to everyday self-regulation. We will first introduce contemporary views surrounding the multi-component-view of working memory. Our emphasis will be on the central executive as the component that is assumed to orchestrate perceptual, cognitive, and motor processes in the service of goal pursuit. We will then spell out in more detail how working memory may benefit self-regulation. Research pertaining to momentary fluctuations in working memory capacity will be reviewed, as well as research highlighting the role of working memory capacity in the control of attention, thought, emotion, and action. We conclude by discussing why in our view there is no simple mapping of working memory operations on the distinction between conscious and non-conscious processing.

Working memory and the hippocampus

Abstract: A number of studies suggest an important role for the hippocampus in tasks involving visuospatial or relational working memory. We test the generality of this proposal across tasks using a battery designed to investigate the various components of working memory, studying the working memory performance of Jon, who shows a bilateral reduction in hippocampal volume of approximately 50%, comparing him to a group of 48 college students. We measure performance on four complex working memory span measures based on combining visuospatial and verbal storage with visuospatial or verbal concurrent processing as well as measuring Jon's ability to carry out the component storage and processing aspects of these tasks. Jon performed at a consistently high level across our range of tasks. Possible reasons for the apparent disparity between our own findings and earlier studies showing a hippocampal deficit are discussed in terms of both the potential differences in the demands placed on relational memory and of the proposed distinction between egocentric and allocentric visuospatial processing.

Disruption of visual feature binding in working memory

Abstract: In a series of five experiments, we studied the effect of a visual suffix on the retention in short-term visual memory of both individual visual features and objects involving the binding of two features. Experiments 1A, 1B, and 2 involved suffixes consisting of features external to the to-be-remembered set and revealed a modest but equivalent disruption on individual and bound feature conditions. Experiments 3A and 3B involved suffixes comprising features that could potentially have formed part of the to-be-remembered set (but did not on that trial). Both experiments showed greater disruption of retention for objects comprising bound features than for their individual features. The results are interpreted as differentiating two components of suffix interference, one affecting memory for features and bindings equally, the other affecting memory for bindings. The general component is tentatively identified with the attentional cost of operating a filter to prevent the suffix from entering visual working memory, whereas the specific component is attributed to the particular fragility of bound representations when the filter fails.

How Does Processing Affect Storage in Working Memory Tasks? Evidence for Both Domain-General and Domain-Specific Effects

Abstract: Two studies that examine whether the forgetting caused by the processing demands of working memory tasks is domain-general or domain-specific are presented. In each, separate groups of adult participants were asked to carry out either verbal or nonverbal operations on exactly the same processing materials while maintaining verbal storage items. The imposition of verbal processing tended to produce greater forgetting even though verbal processing operations took no longer to complete than did nonverbal processing operations. However, nonverbal processing did cause forgetting relative to baseline control conditions, and evidence from the timing of individuals' processing responses suggests that individuals in both processing groups slowed their responses in order to "refresh" the memoranda. Taken together the data suggest that processing has a domain-general effect on working memory performance by impeding refreshment of memoranda but can also cause effects that appear domain-specific and that result from either blocking of rehearsal or interference.

The contribution of phonological short-term memory to artificial grammar learning

Abstract: Three experiments investigated the contribution of phonological short-term memory (STM) to grammar learning by manipulating rehearsal during study of an auditory artificial grammar made up from a vocabulary of spoken Mandarin syllables. Experiment 1 showed that concurrent, irrelevant articulation impaired grammar learning compared with a nonverbal control task. Experiment 2 replicated and extended this finding, showing that repeating the grammatical strings at study improved grammar learning compared with suppressing rehearsal or remaining silent during learning. Experiment 3 found no effects of rehearsal on grammar learning once participants had learned the component syllables. The findings suggest that phonological STM aids artificial grammar learning via effects on vocabulary learning.