Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Modulation of working memory updating: Does long-term memory lexical association matter?

  • Research Report
  • Published:
Cognitive Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate how working memory updating for verbal material is modulated by enduring properties of long-term memory. Two coexisting perspectives that account for the relation between long-term representation and short-term performance were addressed. First, evidence suggests that performance is more closely linked to lexical properties, that is, co-occurrences within the language. Conversely, other evidence suggests that performance is linked more to long-term representations which do not entail lexical/linguistic representations. Our aim was to investigate how these two kinds of long-term memory associations (i.e., lexical or nonlexical) modulate ongoing working memory activity. Therefore, we manipulated (between participants) the strength of the association in letters based on either frequency of co-occurrences (lexical) or contiguity along the sequence of the alphabet (nonlexical). Results showed a cost in working memory updating for strongly lexically associated stimuli only. Our findings advance knowledge of how lexical long-term memory associations between consonants affect working memory updating and, in turn, contribute to the study of factors which impact the updating process across memory systems.

This is a preview of subscription content,log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brain Behavioral Science Department, University of Pavia, Piazza Botta 11, 27100, Pavia, Italy

    Caterina Artuso & Paola Palladino

Authors
  1. Caterina Artuso

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paola Palladino

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toCaterina Artuso.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Juan Lupianez, University of Granada.

Reviewers: Carlos Gómez Ariza, University of Jaén, and an anonymous reviewer.

Appendix

Appendix

A mixed ANOVA with strength (strong, weak) and trial (experimental, control) as within-subject factors, and association (lexical, nonlexical) as between-subjects factors was conducted on the mean number of error by condition. In Table 3, we report the mean number of errors by condition.

Table 3 Mean error rate by condition

The strength did not reach significance,F(1, 46) = .13, partialη2 = .003,p = .72. The trial did not reach significance, as well,F(1, 46) = .078, partialη2 = .002,p = .78. Similarly, the between-subjects factor of association did not show significance,F(1, 46) = .33, partialη2 = .007,p = .57.

We found a marginal significance for the interaction between strength and trial,F(1, 46) = 4.13, partialη2 = .082,p = .068. However, this was further analyzed. Paired samplet tests showed that strong associations did not differ between control (M = 6.27) and experimental trials (M = 6.90),t(47) = 1.78,p = .083. Likewise, weak associations did not differ between control (M = 6.90) and experimental trials (M = 6.42),t(47) = 1.20,p = .235. In control trials, strong (M = 6.27) and weak (M = 6.90) associations were comparable,t(47) = 1.92,p = .081. Similarly, in experimental trials, strong (M = 6.90) and weak associations (M = 6.42) were fully comparable,t(47) = 1.35,p = .183.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Artuso, C., Palladino, P. Modulation of working memory updating: Does long-term memory lexical association matter?.Cogn Process17, 49–57 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0735-4

Download citation

Keywords

Profiles

  1. Paola PalladinoView author profile

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Advertisement


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp