Examining the roles of visual imagery and working memory in the retrieval of autobiographical memories using a dual-task paradigm.

The retrieval of autobiographical memories involves the construction of mental representations of past personal events. Many researchers examining the processes underlying memory retrieval argue that visual imagery plays a fundamental role. Other researchers, however, have argued that working memory is an integral component involved in memory retrieval. The goal of this study was to resolve these conflicting arguments by comparing the relative contributions of visual imagery and working memory during the retrieval of autobiographical memories in a dual-task paradigm. While following a moving dot, viewing a dynamic visual noise (DVN), or viewing a blank screen, 95 participants recalled their memories and subsequently rated them on different memory characteristics. The results suggest that inhibiting visual imagery by having participants view DVN merely delayed memory retrieval but did not affect the phenomenological quality of the memories retrieved. Taxations to the working memory by having participants follow a moving dot, on the contrary, resulted in only longer retrieval latencies and no reductions in the specificity, vividness, or the emotional intensity of the memories retrieved. Whereas the role of visual imagery during retrieval is clear, future studies could further examine the role of working memory during retrieval by administering a task that is less difficult or by recruiting a larger sample than this study. The results of this study seem to suggest that both visual imagery and working memory play a role during the retrieval of autobiographical memory, but more research needs to be conducted to determine their exact roles.

Looking at remembering: Eye movements, pupil size, and autobiographical memory.

To examine the relationship between visual imagery and autobiographical memory, eye position and pupil size were recorded while participants first searched for memories and then reconstructed the retrieved memories (Experiment 1), or only searched for memories (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, we observed that, although recollective experience was not associated with the number of fixations per minute, memories that took longer to retrieve were linked to increased pupil size. In Experiment 2, we observed that directly retrieved memories were recalled more quickly and were accompanied by smaller pupils than generatively retrieved memories. After correcting for response time, retrieval mode also produced an effect, showing that decreased pupil size is not simply due to directly retrieved memories being recalled more quickly. These findings provide compelling evidence that objective measures, such as pupil size, can be used alongside subjective measures, such as self-reports, to distinguish between directly retrieved and generatively retrieved memories.