Mercer Tom, Jarvis Ruby-Jane, Lawton Rebekah, Walters Frankie
Centre for Psychological Research, School of Psychology, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom.
Front Psychol. 2022 May 18;13:896866. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896866. eCollection 2022.
The current contents of visual working memory can be disrupted by previously formed memories. This phenomenon is known as proactive interference, and it can be used to index the availability of old memories. However, there is uncertainty about the robustness and lifetime of proactive interference, which raises important questions about the role of temporal factors in forgetting. The present study assessed different factors that were expected to influence the persistence of proactive interference over an inter-trial interval in the visual recent probes task. In three experiments, participants encoded arrays of targets and then determined whether a single probe matched one of those targets. On some trials, the probe matched an item from the previous trial (a "recent negative"), whereas on other trials the probe matched a more distant item (a "non-recent negative"). Prior studies have found that recent negative probes can increase errors and slow response times in comparison to non-recent negative probes, and this offered a behavioral measure of proactive interference. In Experiment 1, factors of array size (the number of targets to be encoded) and inter-trial interval (300 ms vs. 8 s) were manipulated in the recent probes task. There was a reduction in proactive interference when a longer delay separated trials on one measure, but only when participants encoded two targets. When working memory capacity was strained by increasing the array size to four targets, proactive interference became stronger after the long delay. In Experiment 2, the inter-trial interval length was again manipulated, along with stimulus novelty (the number of stimuli used in the experiment). Proactive interference was modestly stronger when a smaller number of stimuli were used throughout the experiment, but proactive interference was minimally affected by the inter-trial interval. These findings are problematic for temporal models of forgetting, but Experiment 3 showed that proactive interference also resisted disruption produced by a secondary task presented within the inter-trial interval. Proactive interference was constantly present and generally resilient to the different manipulations. The combined data suggest a relatively durable, passive representation that can disrupt current working memory under a variety of different circumstances.
视觉工作记忆的当前内容可能会被先前形成的记忆所干扰。这种现象被称为前摄干扰,它可用于指示旧记忆的可用性。然而,前摄干扰的稳健性和持续时间存在不确定性,这就遗忘中时间因素的作用提出了重要问题。本研究评估了预期会在视觉近期探测任务的试验间隔期间影响前摄干扰持续性的不同因素。在三个实验中,参与者对目标阵列进行编码,然后确定单个探测刺激是否与其中一个目标匹配。在某些试验中,探测刺激与前一次试验中的一个项目匹配(“近期负性刺激”),而在其他试验中,探测刺激与更远的项目匹配(“非近期负性刺激”)。先前的研究发现,与非近期负性刺激相比,近期负性探测刺激会增加错误并延长反应时间,这提供了一种前摄干扰的行为测量方法。在实验1中,在近期探测任务中操纵了阵列大小(要编码的目标数量)和试验间隔(300毫秒与8秒)等因素。当一项测量中试验之间的延迟更长时,前摄干扰有所减少,但仅当参与者编码两个目标时才出现这种情况。当通过将阵列大小增加到四个目标来增加工作记忆容量时,长时间延迟后前摄干扰变得更强。在实验2中,再次操纵了试验间隔长度以及刺激新颖性(实验中使用的刺激数量)。当整个实验中使用的刺激数量较少时,前摄干扰略强,但前摄干扰受试验间隔的影响最小。这些发现对遗忘的时间模型来说是有问题的,但实验3表明,前摄干扰也能抵抗试验间隔期间呈现的次要任务所产生的干扰。前摄干扰持续存在,并且通常能抵抗不同的操纵。综合数据表明存在一种相对持久的、被动的表征,它可以在各种不同情况下干扰当前的工作记忆。