September 2024
Volume 24, Issue 10
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2024
Further evidence that the speed of working memory consolidation is a structural limit
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Benjamin J. Tamber-Rosenau
    University of Houston
  • Lindsay A. Santacroce
    University of Houston
    Toronto Metropolitan University
  • Brandon J. Carlos
    University of Houston
    Ball State University
  • Footnotes
    Acknowledgements  This material was supported by the United States National Science Foundation under grant number 2127822.
Journal of Vision September 2024, Vol.24, 618. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.24.10.618
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Benjamin J. Tamber-Rosenau, Lindsay A. Santacroce, Brandon J. Carlos; Further evidence that the speed of working memory consolidation is a structural limit. Journal of Vision 2024;24(10):618. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.24.10.618.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

It has been proposed that the typically slow consolidation of information from vision to working memory (WM) is under flexible control, and thus can be speeded based on task demands. Recently (Carlos et al., 2023, doi: 10.3758/s13414-023-02757-7), we showed that consolidation is not sped even when it is prioritized over a subsequent competing decision task (T2). However, other research (Nieuwenstein et al., 2015, doi: 10.1167/15.12.739; Woytaszek, 2020) has manipulated the proportion of trials with T2 present and suggested that anticipated interference from competing tasks can lead to speeding of consolidation. Here, we present evidence against speeding of consolidation even when interference can be anticipated, providing an additional line of evidence against flexible control of WM consolidation. Using a within-subjects manipulation, participants completed blocks of a WM task with T2 presented at varying delays from the WM sample, on either 50% or 100% of trials. Retroactive interference from T2 onto WM was similar regardless of block (i.e., T2 probability). In another manipulation, we also varied the delay from T2 response to WM probe and found that this second delay’s duration had no effect on WM reports. Importantly, this suggests that changes in WM performance with sample-T2 delay measure only the interruption of WM consolidation and are not contaminated by proactive interference from T2 onto the report of information from WM. In sum, the present results are consistent with the transfer of information from vision to WM being a slow process that is not under flexible control—either from explicit volitional prioritization, or implicit demands to counter anticipated interference.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×