@phdthesis{RodriguezVillagra2013, author = {Rodr{\´i}guez-Villagra, Odir Antonio}, title = {Inhibition, attentional control, and causes of forgetting in working memory: a formal approach}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-76434}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {133}, year = {2013}, abstract = {In many cognitive activities, the temporary maintenance and manipulation of mental objects is a necessary step in order to reach a cognitive goal. Working memory has been regarded as the process responsible for those cognitive activities. This thesis addresses the question: what limits working-memory capacity (WMC)? A question that still remains controversial (Barrouillet \& Camos, 2009; Lewandowsky, Oberauer, \& Brown, 2009). This study attempted to answer this question by proposing that the dynamics between the causes of forgetting and the processes helping the maintenance, and the manipulation of the memoranda are the key aspects in understanding the limits of WMC. Chapter 1 introduced key constructs and the strategy to examine the dynamics between inhibition, attentional control, and the causes of forgetting in working memory. The study in Chapter 2 tested the performance of children, young adults, and old adults in a working-memory updating-task with two conditions: one condition included go steps and the other condition included go, and no-go steps. The interference model (IM; Oberauer \& Kliegl, 2006), a model proposing interference-related mechanisms as the main cause of forgetting was used to simultaneously fit the data of these age groups. In addition to the interference-related parameters reflecting interference by feature overwriting and interference by confusion, and in addition to the parameters reflecting the speed of processing, the study included a new parameter that captured the time for switching between go steps and no-go steps. The study indicated that children and young adults were less susceptible than old adults to interference by feature overwriting; children were the most susceptible to interference by confusion, followed by old adults and then by young adults; young adults presented the higher rate of processing, followed by children and then by old adults; and young adults were the fastest group switching from go steps to no-go steps. Chapter 3 examined the dynamics between causes of forgetting and the inhibition of a prepotent response in the context of three formal models of the limits of WMC: A resources model, a decay-based model, and three versions of the IM. The resources model was built on the assumption that a limited and shared source of activation for the maintenance and manipulation of the objects underlies the limits of WMC. The decay model assumes that memory traces of the working-memory objects decay over time if they are not reactivated via different mechanisms of maintenance. The IM, already described, proposes that interference-related mechanisms explain the limits of WMC. In two experiments and in a reanalysis of data of the second experiment, one version of the IM received more statistical support from the data. This version of the IM proposes that interference by feature overwriting and interference by confusion are the main factors underlying the limits of WMC. In addition, the model suggests that experimental conditions involving the inhibition of a prepotent response reduce the speed of processing and promotes the involuntary activation of irrelevant information in working memory. Chapter 4 summed up Chapter 2 and 3 and discussed their findings and presented how this thesis has provided evidence of interference-related mechanisms as the main cause of forgetting, and it has attempted to clarify the role of inhibition and attentional control in working memory. With the implementation of formal models and experimental manipulations in the framework of nonlinear mixed models the data offered explanations of causes of forgetting and the role of inhibition in WMC at different levels: developmental effects, aging effects, effects related to experimental manipulations and individual differences in these effects. Thus, the present approach afforded a comprehensive view of a large number of factors limiting WMC.}, language = {en} } @article{PassowMuellerWesterhausenetal.2013, author = {Passow, Susanne and M{\"u}ller, Maike and Westerhausen, Rene and Hugdahl, Kenneth and Wartenburger, Isabell and Heekeren, Hauke R. and Lindenberger, Ulman and Li, Shu-Chen}, title = {Development of attentional control of verbal auditory perception from middle to late childhood - comparisons to healthy aging}, series = {Developmental psychology}, volume = {49}, journal = {Developmental psychology}, number = {10}, publisher = {American Psychological Association}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0012-1649}, doi = {10.1037/a0031207}, pages = {1982 -- 1993}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Multitalker situations confront listeners with a plethora of competing auditory inputs, and hence require selective attention to relevant information, especially when the perceptual saliency of distracting inputs is high. This study augmented the classical forced-attention dichotic listening paradigm by adding an interaural intensity manipulation to investigate developmental differences in the interplay between perceptual saliency and attentional control during auditory processing between early and middle childhood. We found that older children were able to flexibly focus on instructed auditory inputs from either the right or the left ear, overcoming the effects of perceptual saliency. In contrast, younger children implemented their attentional focus less efficiently. Direct comparisons of the present data with data from a recently published study of younger and older adults from our group suggest that younger children and older adults show similar levels of performance. Critically, follow-up comparisons revealed that younger children's performance restrictions reflect difficulties in attentional control only, whereas older adults' performance deficits also reflect an exaggerated reliance on perceptual saliency. We conclude that auditory attentional control improves considerably from middle to late childhood and that auditory attention deficits in healthy aging cannot be reduced to a simple reversal of child developmental improvements.}, language = {en} } @article{KattnerBryce2022, author = {Kattner, Florian and Bryce, Donna}, title = {Attentional control and metacognitive monitoring of the effects of different types of task-Irrelevant sound on serial recall}, series = {Journal of experimental psychology : Human perception and performance}, volume = {48}, journal = {Journal of experimental psychology : Human perception and performance}, number = {2}, publisher = {American Psychological Association}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0096-1523}, doi = {10.1037/xhp0000982}, pages = {139 -- 158}, year = {2022}, abstract = {The presence of task-irrelevant sound disrupts short-term memory for serial information. Recent studies found that enhanced perceptual task-encoding load (static visual noise added to target items) reduces the disruptive effect of an auditory deviant but does not affect the task-specific interference by changing-state sound, indicating that the deviation effect may be more susceptible to attentional control. This study aimed to further specify the role of attentional control in shielding against different types of auditory distraction, examining speech and nonspeech distractors presented in laboratory and Web based experiments. To further elucidate the role of controlled processes, we tested whether the detrimental effects of distractor sounds-and their modulation by attentional control-reach participants' awareness. We found that changing-state sound and auditory deviants in steady-state sound equally affected both objective recall performance and metacognitive confidence judgments but did not affect the accuracy of confidence judgments. Most importantly, across four experiments, an increase of task load (visual degradation of the to-be-remembered items) did not reduce either type of auditory distraction. A close replication of the original modulation of the deviation effect by perceptual task load (in an online environment) even revealed a stronger deviation effect at high task load, suggesting that the manipulation may have influenced cognitive load and the ability to control distractor interference in memory. In line with a unitary account of auditory distraction, the results suggest that although both types of distraction reach metacognitive awareness, they may be equally unrelated to perceptual load and the availability of attentional resources.
Public Significance Statement Our ability to hold information in short-term memory suffers in the presence of background sound, but it is unclear to what extent auditory distraction depends on attentional control and metacognitive monitoring. This study reassessed a finding, whereby the diversion of attention by deviant sounds is reduced when the focal task becomes more difficult to process (via perceptual degradation). A series of experiments showed that both the effect of auditory deviants and the interference by changing-state sound is largely resistant to a manipulation of task load, indicating that distraction is not susceptible to attentional control. Nevertheless, participants appeared to be well aware of the detrimental sound effects on performance, as reflected in metacognitive confidence judgments. The findings have important implications for theoretical accounts of auditory distraction, indicating that disruption is attributable to automatic attentional capture, which cannot be controlled despite us being aware of it.}, language = {en} }