Cowan Nelson, Saults J Scott, Blume Christopher L
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Oct;143(5):1806-1836. doi: 10.1037/a0036814. Epub 2014 May 26.
This study reexamines the issue of how much of working memory storage is central, or shared across sensory modalities and verbal and nonverbal codes, and how much is peripheral, or specific to a modality or code. In addition to the exploration of many parameters in 9 new dual-task experiments and reanalysis of some prior evidence, the innovations of the present work compared to previous studies of memory for 2 stimulus sets include (a) use of a principled set of formulas to estimate the number of items in working memory and (b) a model to dissociate central components, which are allocated to very different stimulus sets depending on the instructions, from peripheral components, which are used for only 1 kind of material. We consistently find that the central contribution is smaller than was suggested by Saults and Cowan (2007) and that the peripheral contribution is often much larger when the task does not require the binding of features within an object. Previous capacity estimates are consistent with the sum of central plus peripheral components observed here. We consider the implications of the data as constraints on theories of working memory storage and maintenance.
本研究重新审视了工作记忆存储中,有多少是核心的,即跨感觉通道以及言语和非言语编码共享的,又有多少是边缘的,即特定于某一通道或编码的这一问题。除了在9个新的双任务实验中探索诸多参数并重新分析一些先前的证据之外,与之前关于两组刺激记忆的研究相比,本研究的创新之处包括:(a) 使用一组有原则的公式来估计工作记忆中的项目数量;(b) 构建一个模型,将根据指令分配给非常不同的刺激集的核心成分与仅用于一种材料的边缘成分区分开来。我们始终发现,核心贡献比索茨和考恩(2007年)所认为的要小,并且当任务不需要在一个对象内绑定特征时,边缘贡献通常要大得多。先前的容量估计与这里观察到的核心加边缘成分的总和一致。我们将这些数据的含义视为对工作记忆存储和维持理论的限制。