Prospective memory: Effects of divided attention on spontaneous retrieval

We examined the effects of divided attention on the spontaneous retrieval of a prospective memory intention. Participants performed an ongoing lexical decision task with an embedded prospective memory demand, and also performed a divided-attention task during some segments of lexical decision trials. In all experiments, monitoring was highly discouraged, and we observed no evidence that participants engaged monitoring processes. In Experiment 1, performing a moderately demanding divided-attention task (a digit detection task) did not affect prospective memory performance. In Experiment 2, performing a more challenging divided-attention task (random number generation) impaired prospective memory. Experiment 3 showed that this impairment was eliminated when the prospective memory cue was perceptually salient. Taken together, the results indicate that spontaneous retrieval is not automatic and that challenging divided-attention tasks interfere with spontaneous retrieval and not with the execution of a retrieved intention.     

Exploring the role of attention during memory retrieval: Effects of semantic encoding and divided attention

Research on attention and memory suggests that semantic encoding leads to retrieval that is highly susceptible to divided attention. Three experiments tested this proposition and showed that dividing attention did not selectively affect semantically encoded items. Participants encoded a list of words in one of two ways: semantically or phonetically. Later, memory was assessed using either a standard recognition test (Experiment 1) or a rhyme recognition test (Experiments 2 and 3). The participants took the memory test either alone (full attention) or while simultaneously performing a secondary task (divided attention). Recognition accuracy was reduced by divided attention on both recognition tests, and semantically and phonetically encoded words were equally affected.     

How a high working memory capacity can increase proactive interference

Previous findings suggested that a high working memory capacity (WMC) is potentially associated with a higher susceptibility to proactive interference (PI) if the latter is measured under high cognitive load. To explain such a finding, we propose to consider susceptibility to PI as a net effect of individual executive processes and the intrinsic potential for PI. With the latter, we refer to the amount of information that is activated at a given time and that has the potential to exert PI subsequently. In two studies deploying generalized linear mixed models, susceptibility to PI was modeled as the decline of performance over trials of a complex span task. The results revealed that a higher WMC was associated with a higher susceptibility to PI. Moreover, the number of stimuli recalled in one trial as a proxy variable for the intrinsic potential for PI negatively affected memory performance in the subsequent trial.     

Emotional stimuli, divided attention, and memory

The emotion-memory literature has shown that negative emotional arousal enhances memory. S. A. Christianson (1992) proposed that preattentive processing could account for this emotion-memory relationship. Two experiments were conducted to test Christianson's theory. In Experiment 1, participants were exposed to neutral and negative arousing slides. In Experiment 2, participants were exposed to neutral, negative arousing, and positive arousing slides. In both experiments, the aforementioned variable was factorially combined with a divided-attention or non-divided-attention condition. The authors predicted that, in contrast to the nondivided condition, dividing attention would adversely impact neutral and positive stimuli more than negative stimuli. The hypothesis was supported; participants recalled more high negative-arousal slides than positive or neutral slides when their attention was divided rather than nondivided.     

Effects of age and a divided attention task presented during encoding and retrieval on memory

The present studies were designed to examine age differences in memory when attention was divided during encoding, retrieval, or at both times. In Experiment 1, Ss studied categorized words while performing a number-monitoring task during encoding, retrieval, or at both times. Older Ss' free recall and clustering performance declined more than that of young Ss when attention was divided at encoding, but there was no similar age interaction when divided attention occurred at retrieval. In Experiment 2, the task demands at retrieval were increased by using a fast-paced, cued-recall task. The results remained unchanged from Experiment 1. Again, an age interaction occurred with divided attention at encoding but not at retrieval. These results were unexpected, given the emphasis in the memory-aging literature on increased difficulty of retrieval by older adults. The findings pose difficulties for limited processing resource views of age differences in memory.     

Individual differences in working memory capacity and divided attention in dichotic listening

The controlled attention theory of working memory suggests that individuals with greater working memory capacity (WMC) are better able to control or focus their attention than individuals with lesser WMC. This relationship has been observed in a number of selective attention paradigms including a dichotic listening task (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001) in which participants were required to shadow words presented to one ear and ignore words presented to the other ear. Conway et al. found that when the participant’s name was presented to the ignored ear, 65% of participants with low WMC reported hearing their name, compared to only 20% of participants with high WMC, suggesting greater selective attention on the part of high WMC participants. In the present study, individual differences in divided attention were examined in a dichotic listening task, in which participants shadowed one message and listened for their own name in the other message. Here we find that 66.7% of high WMC and 34.5% of low WMC participants detected their name. These results suggest that as WMC capacity increases, so does the ability to control the focus of attention, with high WMC participants being able to flexibly “zoom in” or “zoom out” depending on task demands.     

Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect,response competition,and task set to Stroop interference

Individual differences in working-memory (WM) capacity predicted performance on the Stroop task in 5 experiments, indicating the importance of executive control and goal maintenance to selective attention. When the Stroop task encouraged goal neglect by including large numbers of congruent trials (RED presented in red), low WM individuals committed more errors than did high WM individuals on the rare incongruent trials (BLUE in red) that required maintaining access to the "ignore-the-word" goal for accurate responding. In contrast, in tasks with no or few congruent trials, or in high-congruency tasks that followed low-congruency tasks, WM predicted response-time interference. WM was related to latency, not accuracy, in contexts that reinforced the task goal and so minimized the difficulty of actively maintaining it. The data and a literature review suggest that Stroop interference is jointly determined by 2 mechanisms, goal maintenance and competition resolution, and that the dominance of each depends on WM capacity, as well as the task set induced by current and previous contexts.     

Working memory capacity and retrieval from long-term memory: the role of controlled search

In two experiments, the role of working memory capacity (WMC) in the controlled search of long-term memory was examined. Participants performed a prolonged category fluency task that required them to retrieve as many animals as possible in 5 min. The results suggested that WMC differences arose in the numbers of animals retrieved, the numbers of clusters retrieved, and the rates of the retrieval (Exp. 1). However, no differences were found in terms of how participants initiated retrieval or in the nature of the clusters generated. Furthermore, an examination of differences in retrieval strategies suggested that high-WMC individuals were more strategic than low-WMC individuals and that these differences in retrieval strategies accounted for the overall differences in the numbers of animals retrieved. Additionally, presenting participants with retrieval cues eliminated WMC differences in the numbers of animals retrieved (Exp. 2). These results suggest that low-WMC individuals are less able than high-WMC individuals to select and utilize appropriate retrieval strategies to self-generate cues to access information in long-term memory. Collectively, the results are consistent with research suggesting that WMC is important for controlled search from long-term memory.     

Divided attention and memory: evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding

In 5 divided attention (DA) experiments, students (24 in each experiment) performed visual distracting tasks (e.g., recognition of words, word and digit monitoring) while either simultaneously encoding an auditory word list or engaging in oral free recall of the target word list. DA during retrieval, using either of the word-based distracting tasks, produced relatively larger interference effects than the digit-monitoring task. DA during encoding produced uniformly large interference effects, regardless of the type of distracting task. Results suggest that when attention is divided at retrieval, interference is created only when the memory and concurrent task compete for access to word-specific representational systems; no such specificity is necessary to create interference at encoding. During encoding, memory and concurrent tasks compete primarily for general resources, whereas during retrieval, they compete primarily for representational systems.     

Implicit proactive interference, age, and automatic versus controlled retrieval strategies

We assessed the extent to which implicit proactive interference results from automatic versus controlled retrieval among younger and older adults. During a study phase, targets (e.g., "ALLERGY") either were or were not preceded by nontarget competitors (e.g., "ANALOGY"). After a filled interval, the participants were asked to complete word fragments, some of which cued studied words (e.g., "A_L_ _GY"). Retrieval strategies were identified by the difference in response speed between a phase containing fragments that cued only new words and a phase that included a mix of fragments cuing old and new words. Previous results were replicated: Proactive interference was found in implicit memory, and the negative effects were greater for older than for younger adults. Novel findings demonstrate two retrieval processes that contribute to interference: an automatic one that is age invariant and a controlled process that can reduce the magnitude of the automatic interference effects. The controlled process, however, is used effectively only by younger adults. This pattern of findings potentially explains age differences in susceptibility to proactive interference.     

The effects of divided attention on encoding processes in memory: mapping the locus of interference.

Despite the detrimental effects of divided attention at encoding on later memory performance, results described in the literature do not unequivocally specify which processes are interrupted during encoding by participants' occupation with a concurrent task. Using a processing analysis framework where the encoding process is viewed as a multiphase mental activity, the current research investigated this issue using a new differential temporal interference paradigm where the study phase of single words was interrupted at different temporal segments. In two experiments, we used performance on both memory and online choice reaction time tasks to assess whether such differential interference would produce different degrees of reduction in participants' later memory performance, as well as changes in the attentional resources required to execute each of the encoding phases. Measures of memory and concurrent task performance in the two experiments converged on similar patterns, showing that all phases of encoding are affected by the concurrent task. However, the initial encoding phase, which is tentatively associated with the initial registration of information, seems especially vulnerable to interference.     

Effects of proactive interference on non-verbal working memory

Working memory (WM) is a cognitive system responsible for actively maintaining and processing relevant information and is central to successful cognition. A process critical to WM is the resolution of proactive interference (PI), which involves suppressing memory intrusions from prior memories that are no longer relevant. Most studies that have examined resistance to PI in a process-pure fashion used verbal material. By contrast, studies using non-verbal material are scarce, and it remains unclear whether the effect of PI is domain-general or whether it applies solely to the verbal domain. The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of PI in visual WM using both objects with high and low nameability. Using a Directed-Forgetting paradigm, we varied discriminability between WM items on two dimensions, one verbal (high-nameability vs. low-nameability objects) and one perceptual (colored vs. gray objects). As in previous studies using verbal material, effects of PI were found with object stimuli, even after controlling for verbal labels being used (i.e., low-nameability condition). We also found that the addition of distinctive features (color, verbal label) increased performance in rejecting intrusion probes, most likely through an increase in discriminability between content–context bindings in WM.     

Effects of divided attention at encoding and retrieval: Further data

Division of attention (DA) at the time of learning has large detrimental effects on subsequent memory performance, but DA at retrieval has much smaller effects (Baddeley, Lewis, Eldridge, & Thomson, 1984, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 518–540; Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 159–180). Experiment 1 confirmed the relatively small effects of DA on retrieval and also showed that retrieval operations do consume processing resources. The experiment also found that the effect is not attributable to a trade-off in performance with the concurrent task or to recognition decisions made on the basis of familiarity judgments. Participants made levels-of-processing (LOP) judgments during encoding to check whether deeper semantic judgments were differentially vulnerable to the effects of DA. In fact DA did not interact with LOP. Experiment 2 explored reports that the comparatively slight effect of DA on recognition accuracy is accompanied by a compensatory increase in recognition latency (Baddeley et al., 1984). The experiment replicated findings that neither DA nor differential emphasis between recognition and a concurrent continuous reaction time (CRT) task affected recognition accuracy, but also found evidence for a lawful trade-off in decision latencies between recognition and CRT performance. Further analysis showed that the relationship between response rates on the two tasks was well described by a linear function, and that this function was demonstrated by the majority of individual participants. It is concluded that the small effect of DA on recognition performance is attributable to a trade-off within the recognition task itself; accuracy is maintained by a compensatory increase in decision latency.     

The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: The resiliency of retrieval processes

We have recently cast doubt (Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996; Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Guez, & Dori, 1998) on the view that encoding and retrieval processes in human memory are similar. Divided attention at encoding was shown to reduce memory performance significantly, whereas divided attention at retrieval affected memory performance only minimally. In this article we examined this asymmetry further by using more difficult retrieval tasks, which require substantial effort. In one experiment, subjects had to encode and retrieve lists of unfamiliar name-nouns combinations attached to people's photographs, and in the other, subjects had to encode words that were either strong or weak associates of the cues presented with them and then to retrieve those words with either intra- or extra-list cues. The results of both experiments showed that unlike division of attention at encoding, which reduces memory performance markedly, division of attention at retrieval has almost no effect on memory performance, but was accompanied by an increase in secondary-task cost. Such findings again illustrated the resiliency of retrieval processes to manipulations involving the withdrawal of attention. We contend that retrieval processes are obligatory or protected, but that they require attentional resources for their execution.     

Working memory capacity and retrieval limitations from long-term memory: An examination of differences in accessibility

In two experiments, the locus of individual differences in working memory capacity and long-term memory recall was examined. Participants performed categorical cued and free recall tasks, and individual differences in the dynamics of recall were interpreted in terms of a hierarchical-search framework. The results from this study are in accordance with recent theorizing suggesting a strong relation between working memory capacity and retrieval from long-term memory. Furthermore, the results also indicate that individual differences in categorical recall are partially due to differences in accessibility. In terms of accessibility of target information, two important factors drive the difference between high- and low-working-memory-capacity participants. Low-working-memory-capacity participants fail to utilize appropriate retrieval strategies to access cues, and they also have difficulty resolving cue overload. Thus, when low-working-memory-capacity participants were given specific cues that activated a smaller set of potential targets, their recall performance was the same as that of high-working-memory-capacity participants.     

Distinct capacity limits for attention and working memory: Evidence from attentive tracking and visual working memory paradigms

A hallmark of both visual attention and working memory is their severe capacity limit: People can attentively track only about four objects in a multiple object tracking (MOT) task and can hold only up to four objects in visual working memory (VWM). It has been proposed that attention underlies the capacity limit of VWM. We tested this hypothesis by determining the effect of varying the load of a MOT task performed during the retention interval of a VWM task and comparing the resulting dual-task costs with those observed when a VWM task was performed concurrently with another VWM task or with a verbal working memory task. Instead of supporting the view that the capacity limit of VWM is solely attention based, the results indicate that VWM capacity is set by the interaction of visuospatial attentional, central amodal, and local task-specific sources of processing.     

Full versus divided attention and implicit memory performance

Effects of full and divided attention during study on explicit and implicit memory performance were investigated in two experiments. Study time was manipulated in a third experiment. Experiment 1 showed that both similar and dissociative effects can be found in the two kinds of memory test, depending on the difficulty of the concurrent tasks used in the divided-attention condition. In this experiment, however, standard implicit memory tests were used and contamination by explicit memory influences cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in Experiments 2 and 3 the process dissociation procedure was applied. Manipulations of attention during study and of study time clearly affected the controlled (explicit) memory component, but had no effect on the automatic (implicit) memory component. Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Testing complex animal cognition: Concept learning,proactive interference,and list memory

This article describes an approach for assessing and comparing complex cognition in rhesus monkeys and pigeons by training them in a sequence of synergistic tasks, each yielding a whole function for enhanced comparisons. These species were trained in similar same/different tasks with expanding training sets (8, 16, 32, 64, 128 … 1024 pictures) followed by novel‐stimulus transfer eventually resulting in full abstract‐concept learning. Concept‐learning functions revealed better rhesus transfer throughout and full concept learning at the 128 set, versus pigeons at the 256 set. They were then tested in delayed same/different tasks for proactive interference by inserting occasional tests within trial‐unique sessions where the test stimulus matched a previous sample stimulus (1, 2, 4, 8, 16 trials prior). Proactive‐interference functions revealed time‐based interference for pigeons (1, 10 s delays), but event‐based interference for rhesus (no effect of 1, 10, 20 s delays). They were then tested in list‐memory tasks by expanding the sample to four samples in trial‐unique sessions (minimizing proactive interference). The four‐item, list‐memory functions revealed strong recency memory at short delays, gradually changing to strong primacy memory at long delays over 30 s for rhesus, and 10 s for pigeons. Other species comparisons and future directions are discussed.     

Capacity limits in list item recognition: evidence from proactive interference

Capacity limits in short-term recall were investigated using proactive interference (PI) from previous lists in a speeded-recognition task. PI was taken to indicate that the target list length surpassed working memory capacity. Unlike previous studies, words were presented either concurrently or sequentially and a new method was introduced to increase the amount of PI. On average, participants retrieved about four items without PI. We suggest an activation-based account of capacity limits.     

Capacity limits in list item recognition: Evidence from proactive interference

Capacity limits in short‐term recall were investigated using proactive interference (PI) from previous lists in a speeded‐recognition task. PI was taken to indicate that the target list length surpassed working memory capacity. Unlike previous studies, words were presented either concurrently or sequentially and a new method was introduced to increase the amount of PI. On average, participants retrieved about four items without PI. We suggest an activation‐based account of capacity limits.