Analogous selection processes in declarative and procedural working memory: N-2 list-repetition and task-repetition costs

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 26-39

  Gade, Miriam ^a,b   Souza, Alessandra S ^a   Druey, Michel D ^a   Oberauer, Klaus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EICHSTÄTT INGOLSTADT   (Germany)

Author keywords

Episodic memory; Inhibition; List switching; Task switching; Working memory

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; EPISODIC MEMORY; HUMAN; LONG TERM MEMORY; MENTAL ARITHMETIC; PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION; RECOGNITION; WORKING MEMORY; ADULT; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; SHORT TERM MEMORY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; MEMORY, EPISODIC; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84982103972     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-016-0645-4     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Altmann, E. M. (2007). Cue-independent task-specific representations in task switching: Evidence from backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(5), 892–899. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.892
2. Anderson, M. C., & Levy, B. J. (2007). Theoretical issues in inhibition: Insights from research on human memory. In D. S. Gorfein & C. M. MacLeod (Eds.), Inhibition in cognition (pp. 81–102). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
3. Arbuthnott, K. D. (2005). The influence of cue type on backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 1030–1042. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.1030
4. Arbuthnott, K. D., & Woodward, T. S. (2002). The influence of cue-task association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 56(1), 18–29. doi:10.1037/h0087382
5. Arbuthnott, K., & Frank, J. (2000). Executive control in set switching: Residual switch cost and task-set inhibition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 54(1), 33–41. doi:10.1037/h0087328
6. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (Version R package version 0.999999-0). Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
7. Costa, R. E., & Friedrich, F. J. (2012). Inhibition, interference, and conflict in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(6), 1193–1201. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0311-1
8. Druey, M. D. (2014). Stimulus-category and response-repetition effects in task switching: An evaluation of four explanations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 125–146. doi:10.1037/a0033868
9. Gade, M., Druey, M. D., Souza, A. S., & Oberauer, K. (2014). Interference within and between declarative and procedural representations in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 174–194. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2014.07.002
10. Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2005). Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 530–534.
11. Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). The influence of overlapping response sets on task inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 35(4), 603–609. doi:10.3758/BF03193298
12. Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2008). Dissociating cue-related and task-related processes in task inhibition: Evidence from using a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(1), 51–55. doi:10.1037/1196-1961.62.1.51
13. Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2014). Cue type affects preparatory influences on task inhibition. Acta Psychologica, 148, 12–18. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.12.009
14. Gade, M., Schuch, S., Druey, M. D., & Koch, I. (2014). Inhibitory control in task switching. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Executive control and task switching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Grange, J. A., Kowalczyk, A. W., & O’Loughlin, R. (2015). The Effect of Episodic Retrieval on Inhibition in Task Switching (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2695998). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2695998
16. Houghton, G., Pritchard, R., & Grange, J. A. (2009). The role of cue-target translation in backward inhibition of attentional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 466–476. doi:10.1037/a0014648
17. Kelley, K., & Lai, K. (2012). MBESS: MBESS (Version R package version 3.3.3). Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MBESS
18. Koch, I., Gade, M., & Philipp, A. M. (2004). Inhibition of response mode in task switching. Experimental Psychology, 51(1), 52–58. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.51.1.52
19. Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 1–14. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.1.1
20. Kuhns, D., Lien, M.-C., & Ruthruff, E. (2007). Proactive versus reactive task-set inhibition: Evidence from flanker compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 977–983. doi:10.3758/BF03194131
21. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2014). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. (Version R package version 2.0-20). Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest
22. Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 764–766. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013
23. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434.
24. Mayr, U. (2002). Inhibition of action rules. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(1), 93–99.
25. Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(1), 4–26. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.1.4
26. Oberauer, K. (2009). Design for a working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 45–100. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51002-X
27. Oberauer, K. (2010). Declarative and procedural working memory: Common principles, common capacity limits? Psychologica Belgica, 50(3–4), 277–308.
28. Oberauer, K., Souza, A., Druey, M. D., & Gade, M. (2013). Analogous mechanisms of selection and updating in declarative and procedural working memory: Experiments and a computational model. Cognitive Psychology, 66(2), 157–211. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.11.001
29. Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2006). Task inhibition and task repetition in task switching. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 624–639. doi:10.1080/09541440500423269
30. R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
31. Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 92–105. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.92
32. Sdoia, S., & Ferlazzo, F. (2008). Stimulus-related inhibition of task set during task switching. Experimental Psychology, 55(5), 322–327.
33. Sexton, N. J., & Cooper, R. P. (2015). Task-set inhibition, conflict, and the n-2 repetition cost: a computational model of task switching. Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved from http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/12077/
34. Souza Ada, S., Oberauer, K., Gade, M., & Druey, M. D. (2012). Processing of representations in declarative and procedural working memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(5), 1006–1033. doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.640403