Shan Jiangang, Postle Bradley R
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, US.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, US.
J Cogn. 2022 May 24;5(1):31. doi: 10.5334/joc.222. eCollection 2022.
Flexible control of the contents of working memory (WM) includes removing no-longer-relevant information. Although simply withdrawing attention offers a "passive" mechanism, empirical findings suggest that it is also possible to actively remove information from WM. In this Registered Report we tested evidence that the bias (serial dependence) that an item exerts on the subsequent trial will be opposite in sign-attraction vs. repulsion - depending on whether it was passively or actively removed, respectively. A repulsive bias would be consistent with a specific mechanism for active removal: a rapid adaptation-like modification of perceptual circuitry. In a preliminary study, trials of two types were administered in pairs, multi-item WM followed by 1-item delayed recall, and we evaluated serial dependence of the latter on items from the former. In the first trial of each pair, two memoranda were presented, then one was designated irrelevant, then a third memorandum was presented. The critical manipulation was whether the third item was presented at the same location as the now "irrelevant memory item" (IMI). Overlap between the two should prompt the active removal of the IMI, whereas nonoverlap might prompt just the withdrawal of attention. Whereas the IMI exerted the expected attractive bias on 1-item recall in the condition, we found an (unexpected) repulsive bias in the condition. Because repulsive biases have been attributed to the adaptation-like modification of perceptual circuitry, replication of this result in this Registered Report would provide independent evidence for this mechanism for active removal from WM. Interpretation of the Stage 2 results are complicated by the fact that the approved Registered Report, carried out online, generated data that failed to meet a basic sanity check, and were therefore uninterpretable. Consequently, a follow-up lab-based experiment using procedures similar to the Registered Report generated results consistent with the hypothesis of principal theoretical interest: The IMI in the condition exerted a repulsive bias on the subsequent trial.
对工作记忆(WM)内容的灵活控制包括去除不再相关的信息。虽然仅仅转移注意力提供了一种“被动”机制,但实证研究结果表明,也有可能从工作记忆中主动去除信息。在本预注册报告中,我们检验了这样的证据:一个项目对后续试验施加的偏差(序列依赖性)在吸引与排斥方面的符号会相反,这分别取决于它是被被动还是主动去除的。排斥性偏差将与主动去除的一种特定机制相一致:感知电路的快速适应性样修改。在一项初步研究中,两种类型的试验成对进行,即多项目工作记忆试验后接单项目延迟回忆试验,我们评估了后者对前者项目的序列依赖性。在每对试验的第一次试验中,呈现两个记忆项目,然后将其中一个指定为不相关,接着呈现第三个记忆项目。关键的操作是第三个项目是否在与现在的“不相关记忆项目”(IMI)相同的位置呈现。两者之间的重叠应该会促使主动去除IMI,而非重叠可能只会促使注意力转移。虽然在[某种条件]下IMI对单项目回忆施加了预期的吸引性偏差,但我们在[另一种条件]下发现了(意外的)排斥性偏差。由于排斥性偏差已被归因于感知电路的适应性样修改,在本预注册报告中复制这一结果将为这种从工作记忆中主动去除信息的机制提供独立证据。第二阶段结果的解释因以下事实而变得复杂:经批准的在线预注册报告所产生的数据未能通过基本的合理性检查,因此无法解释。因此,一项基于实验室的后续实验采用了与预注册报告类似的程序,得出了与主要理论兴趣假设一致的结果:[某种条件]下的IMI对后续试验施加了排斥性偏差。