A dual mechanisms of control account of age differences in working memory.

Age-related differences in working memory (WM) can be large, but the exact sources are unclear. We hypothesized that young adults outperform older adults on WM tasks because they use controlled attention processes to prioritize the maintenance of relevant information in WM in a proactive mode, whereas older adults tend to rely on the strength of familiarity signals to make memory decisions in a reactive mode. We used a WM task that cued participants to prioritize one item over others and presented repeated lure probes that cause errors when one is engaged in a reactive mode. Results showed that, relative to young adults with full attention available to use proactive control during the delays, older adults with full attention (and young adults with divided attention) during the delays had exaggerated error rates to repeated lure probes compared to control probes. When the amount of proactive interference was increased (by repeating stimuli across trials), older adults were able to engage in proactive control, and this eliminated their exaggerated error rate (while young adults with divided attention could not). These results provide evidence for a dual mechanisms of control account of age differences in WM. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Are latent working memory items retrieved from long-term memory?

Switching one's focus of attention between to-be-remembered items in working memory (WM) is critical for cognition, but the mechanisms by which this is accomplished are unclear. A long-term memory (LTM) account suggests that switching attention away from an item, and passively retaining and reactivating such "latent" items back into the focus of attention involves episodic LTM retrieval processes, even for delays of only a few seconds. We tested this hypothesis using a two-item, double-retrocue WM task that requires participants to switch attention away from and reactivate items followed by subsequent LTM tests for reactivated items from the initial WM task (vs. continuously retained or untested control items). We compared performance on these tests between older adults (a population with LTM deficits) and young adults with either full (Experiment 1) or divided (Experiment 2) attention during the WM delay periods. The effects of reactivating latent items, as well as ageing and divided attention, had significant effects on WM performance, but did not interact with or systematically affect subsequent LTM for reactivated versus control items on item-, location-, or associative-recognition memory judgements made with either high or low confidence. Experiment 3 confirmed that these effects did not depend on whether or not young participants were warned about the subsequent LTM tests before performing the WM task. These dissociations between WM and LTM are inconsistent with the LTM account of latent WM; they are more consistent with the dynamic processing model of WM (Current Directions in Psychological Science).

Are irrelevant items actively deleted from visual working memory?: No evidence from repulsion and attraction effects in dual-retrocue tasks.

Some theories propose that working memory (WM) involves the active deletion of irrelevant information, including items that were retained in WM, but are no longer relevant for ongoing cognition. Considerable evidence suggests that active-deletion occurs for categorical representations, but whether it also occurs for recall of features that are typically bound together in an object, such as line orientations, is unclear. In two experiments, with or without binding instructions, healthy young adults maintained two orientations, focused attention to recall the orientation cued first, and then switched attention to recall the orientation cued second, at which point the uncued orientation was no longer relevant on the trial. In contrast to the active-deletion hypothesis, the results showed that the no-longer-relevant items exerted the strongest bias on participants' recall, which was either repulsive or attractive depending on both the degree of difference between the target and nontarget orientations and the proximity to cardinal axes. We suggest that visual WM can bind features like line orientations into chunked representations, and an irrelevant feature of a chunked object cannot be actively deleted - it biases recall of the target feature. Models of WM need to be updated to explain this and related dynamic phenomena.