Polkadot JAM Slides - Token2049 - By Dr. Gavin Wood
3 escop 2005
1. Do Working Memory Spans
Depend only on Time?
Pierre Barrouillet
Valérie Camos
Sophie Portrat
Université de Bourgogne
LEAD - CNRS
2. Working Memory Span Tasks
They involve:
• Maintenance: items to be maintained and recalled
• Processing: some task, usually complex, such as reading
comprehension or problem solving
3. Working Memory Span Tasks
(6/3)+5=7? Operation span
(Turner & Engle, 1989)
Truck
(3+6)/3=2?
Deer
(8-6)x3=6?
Nail
Recall
4. Time-Based Resource-Sharing Model
The main proposals
Barrouillet, Bernardin, & Camos, JEP:G, 2004
1. Processing and maintenance require attention which is a limited resource (some
sharing is needed)
2. As soon as attention is switched away from the memory items, their activation
suffers from a time-related decay
3. Refreshing the decaying memory traces necessitates their retrieval through
attentional focusing
4. Those processing components that require retrievals from LTM should have the
most detrimental effect on concurrent maintenance
5. When processing involves retrievals, sharing attention is time based because a
central bottleneck allows only one retrieval at a time
6. Switching mechanism and decay
Possible reactivation
of memory traces CL
Truck R R R R Deer
CL
Truck R R R R Deer
CL
Truck R R R R Deer
7. Cognitive Load is
The proportion of time during which a given activity captures attention
in such a way that the refreshment of memory traces is impeded.
Duration of attentional capture
CL =
Total time allowed
The more difficult the switching, the higher the cognitive load.
8. A metric for Cognitive Load
In tasks involving retrievals from LTM
The number of retrievals n
Their difficulty a
(the time they occupy central processes)
The total time allowed to perform them T
aN
CL =
T
9. Cognitive Load
as defined by the Time-Based Resource-Sharing model
depends on
rate of processing rather than complexity
duration of the atomic steps of processing
nature of the processes involved
10. Cognitive Load
as defined by the Time-Based Resource-Sharing model
depends on
rate of processing rather than complexity
duration of the atomic steps of processing
nature of the processes involved
11. Rate of Processing
Manipulating the Number of Retrievals / Time ratio
The Reading Digit Span Task
R8
31 Read aloud the successive screens
64 and recall the letters
K7
25
49
L3
68
24
12. Rate of Processing
Manipulating the Number of Retrievals / Time ratio
Either 6 or 10 digits to be read
Constant duration of the interletter intervals (6 s)
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
6 Digits 10 Digits
13. Rate of Processing
Manipulating the Number of Retrievals / Time ratio
Fixed number of digits to be read
Either 600 or 1000 ms per digit
5
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Slow Fast
1000 ms 600 ms
14. Rate of Processing
Manipulating the Number of Retrievals / Time ratio
Varying
the number of digits to be read
and the time allowed to read them
• Either 4, 8, or 12 digits during 6, 8, or 10 seconds
• 9 different values of the critical ratio (from 0.4 to 2)
15. Rate of Processing
6
5,5
5
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
r = .965
2
1,5
1
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Number of retrievals / Time ratio
Barrouillet, Bernardin, & Camos, JEP:G, 2004
16. Rate of processing rather than complexity
Lépine, Bernardin, & Barrouillet, EJCP, 2005
In undergraduate students who remembered series of digits:
• Traditional Reading Span (self paced)
• Reading Letter Span (slow: 1200 ms per letter)
• Reading Letter Span (fast: 600 ms per letter)
17. Rate of processing rather than complexity
Lépine, Bernardin, & Barrouillet, EJCP, 2005
4,5
4
3,5
WM span
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
RS self-paced RLS slow RLS fast
Reading letters can have the same detrimental effect on spans as reading complex sentences !
18. Cognitive Load
as defined by the Time-Based Resource-Sharing model
depends on
rate of processing rather than complexity
duration of the atomic steps of processing
nature of the processes involved
19. Duration of the atomic steps of processing
Slower retrievals
Central processes occupied for a longer period
Higher CL
LOWER SPANS
20. Duration of the atomic steps of processing
A reading digit span with digits presented …
4 Four IV
442 ms 446 ms 625 ms
Reading digit spans should be lower when digits are presented in roman
Reading numbers (1 to 9) while maintaining letters
1 digit per second
21. Duration of the atomic steps of processing
4,5
4
*
WM span
3,5
3
2,5
2
4 Four IV
Slower retrievals occupy central processes for longer periods
and involve higher cognitive load.
22. Cognitive Load
as defined by the Time-Based Resource-Sharing model
depends on
rate of processing rather than complexity
duration of the atomic steps of processing
nature of the processes involved
23. Nature of the processes involved
Bernardin, Portrat, & Barrouillet, in press
Two different groups are presented with the same display
G 8 but perform different activities:
5
6
Location
Parity 1 2 “ Up, up, down, down”
“ Even, odd, even, odd …”
Retrievals from LTM required
3
Lower spans predicted
P
24. Nature of the processes involved
Bernardin, Portrat, & Barrouillet, in press
4,5
4
3,5
*
3
WM span
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Location Parity
Retrievals from LTM more demanding than location judgments
25. Nature of the processes or time ???
Parity judgments involve lower spans but …
they probably take also longer !
26. Nature or duration of the processes involved?
Barrouillet, Portrat, Bernardin, & Camos, in prep.
WM spans as a function of the actual processing time within the interletter interval
4 7 2
T 9 K
Stimulus onset Response
Parity RT
Actual Processing Time = Σ RT
Location
27. Nature or duration of the processes involved?
Barrouillet, Portrat, Bernardin, & Camos, in prep.
Series of ascending length of 1 to 7 letters to be remembered (3 series of
each length)
Interletter intervals 6400 ms
Either 4, 6, or 8 stimuli to be processed in each interval
Responses by pressing keys
2 Tasks x 3 Rates = 6 groups of 16 adults
28. Spans as a function of the number of stimuli
and the nature of the task
6
Location
5.5
5
4.5
Mean span
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
4 6 8
Number of stimuli
29. Spans as a function of the number of stimuli
and the nature of the task
6
Location
5.5
Parity
5
4.5
Mean span
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
4 6 8
Number of stimuli
30. Actual duration of processing as a function of
the task and number of stimuli
4
3.5
Location
Actual duration of processing
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
4 6 8
Number of stimuli
31. Actual duration of processing as a function of
the task and number of stimuli
4
3.5 Parity
Location
Actual duration of processing
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
4 6 8
Number of stimuli
32. Nature or duration of the processes involved?
6.5
6
Observed location spans
5.5
Mean Span
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Actual Interletter Processing Time (sec)
33. Nature or duration of the processes involved?
Barrouillet, Portrat, Bernardin, & Camos, in prep.
6.5
6
5.5
Mean Span
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Actual Interletter Processing Time (sec)
34. Nature or duration of the processes involved?
Barrouillet, Portrat, Bernardin, & Camos, in prep.
6.5
6
Predicted span values for a
5.5 location task thatobserved
Parity spans would take
longer
Mean Span
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Actual Interletter Processing Time (sec)
35. Nature or duration of the processes involved?
Barrouillet, Portrat, Bernardin, & Camos, in prep.
6.5
Mean location span
6
5.23
5.5
Mean parity span observed
4.48
Mean Span
5
4.5
Mean span predicted
4.48
4
3.5
3
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Actual Interletter Processing Time (sec)
36. Nature or duration of the processes involved?
Barrouillet, Portrat, Bernardin, & Camos, in prep.
6.5
Mean location span
6
5.23
5.5
Mean parity span observed
4.48
Mean Span
5
4.5
Mean span predicted
4
4.48
3.5
3
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Actual Interletter Processing Time (sec)
37. Tasks have no effect on spans beyond their duration
Do working memory spans depend only on time?
Working memory spans depend on the time
during which the processing component
captures attention
38. Thanks to
Sophie Bernardin
Raphaëlle Lépine
Nathalie Gavens
LEAD - CNRS Université de Bourgogne
Notes de l'éditeur
WM is a system devoted to the maintenance of relevant information during processing Thus WM span tasks usually involve these two activities with some memory items to be maintained while a concurrent processing must be performed
For example, in the well known Operation span, participants are asked to solve arithmetic equations while maintaining words to be recalled at the end of the series.
We recently proposed a model accounting for the cognitive processes involved in WM span tasks, the TBRS model. In its initial version, the TBRS model was based on five main proposals
Within this model, the main point is probably that resource sharing is achieved through a rapid switching between processing and maintenance that occurs during the processing component of the task.
We assume that the constraints on the switching process determines cognitive load. Suppose that your are performing a WM span task, and that you are successively presented with these two words. Unfortunately, you have to perform some intervening task during the interval. This task involves for example successive memory retrievals, during which the memory traces of the words decay, but you can keep free short slots to retrieve and refresh these traces. Let us suppose that this activity involves a moderate cognitive load. Now, if you are given more time to perform the same task, you have longer periods of time to reactivate memory traces. The WM task becomes easier because cognitive load decreases On the other hand, if the time is reduced, it becomes difficult to concurrently refresh memory traces. Cognitive load increases and WM span should decrease.
In this account, CL depends on the number and difficulty of retrievals because retrievals block attention for a portion of time. In other words CL is given by this equation the proportion of time during which attention is captured.
According to this analysis, the CL of the task we presented above depends on three parameters: the number of retrievals it requires, their difficulty, (some retrievals need more time than others), and the time allowed to perform them CL is given by the following equation, CL depends here on the Number of retrievals / Time ratio .
CL, and as a consequence WM spans, would thus depend on three main parameters Rate of processing rather than complexity of the processing component (lire) with long durations resulting in higher CL and lower spans (lire) Because we initially assumed that retrievals are more damaging than other activities
Let us recall what happens when the rate of processing is manipulated
We tested the hypothesis that CL is a matter of rate of processing using a very simple task, the reading digit span task letters to be remembered and digits to be read are successively presented on screen And subjects are asked to read them aloud and to recall the letters.
First we manipulated the number of retrievals while keeping time constant so, we presented either 6 or 10 digits Within constant interletter intervals of 6 s As we predicted, increasing the number of digits to be read had a detrimental effect on span
Then we manipulated the time allowed to perform an unchanged task We presented a constant number of digits That were presented either 600 or thousand ms Once more, there was a clear effect of pace. The faster the pace, the lower the span.
We verified the predictive value of the equation in a study in which we varied both the number of digits to be read and the time allowed to read them. (lire) (lire)
As we predicted, WM spans smoothly decreased as the CL of the reading digit task increased. and the regression line Nicely fitted these points
Our theory predicts that very simple tasks can have a highly detrimental effect on spans because complexity does not matter. What is important is pace. Actually, our experiments support this prediction. We compared three tasks in which undergraduate students had to recall digits: in the traditional RS, adults were asked to read and understand sentences Whereas in the reading letter span task, they were just asked to read successive letters presented at a slow Or fast pace And the reading digit span in which adults have just to read digits, a very simple activity.
The mean reading span was about 3 Not surprisingly, the reading letter span was higher and above 4 But when performed at a fast pace, the task became as difficult as the reading span task (lire)
Now the second point concerning the duration of processing steps
If our analysis is correct, the time a given activity blocks the central processes has a direct impact on the CL. For example slower retrievals occupy the central processes for longer periods of time, Thus involve a higher CL and then lower spans.
We compared three conditions of a reading digit span task in which numbers were presented either in their Arabic Verbal or Roman form. The corresponding Reading times are … wit the roman form that takes longer Thus we predicted lower spans when numbers are presented in their Roman form. Participants had to read numbers while maintaining letters At a rate of 1 digit per s.
As predicted by the reading times there was no big difference between spans when digits were presented in Arabic or Verbal form. but, the roman presentation, which takes longer to read resulted in lower spans. As predicted by the Time-based resource sharing model … (lire)
Our last point concerns the impact of nature of the processes
Remember that we predicted that among attention-demanding activities, the retrievals should have the most detrimental effect because retrievals are also needed to refresh decaying memory traces in STM. We designed a task … in which participants had to maintain letters and process numbers but in two different ways One group had to judge the parity of the number Whereas the other was just asked to judge their location on screen Our prediction was, all other thinks being equal, that the parity task would result in lower spans than the location task.
As we expected, an activity that requires retrievals from LTM is more disruptive than an activity that just requires response selection. Retrievals seem to be more demanding
But, what is the locus of the effect, the nature of the task or its duration
What is needed is a careful control of the actual processing time For example, using the same task We could measure the time taken to evaluate the parity of each number Or its location The actual processing time is the sum of these RTs
Thus we designed an experiment in which adults were asked to Maintain series of letters With interletter intervals of 6400 ms During which were presented either 4, 6, or 8 numbers for a parity or a location task The responses were given by pressing keys And we used 6 independent groups
As we already knew, the spans decreased when the number of stimuli increased
And the parity task resulted in lower spans
Concerning the actual duration of processing, of course it increased with the number of stimuli to process
But the parity task took longer than the location task. Thus, lower spans are associated with longer durations of processing. IS THERE AN EFFECT OF THE TASK OR ONLY AN EFFECT OF TIME????
To answer the question, we have to analyse spans as a function of time. These are the actual processing times for the location span task And the resulting spans observed Would these spans differ from the parity spans if the two tasks involved the same durations? Remember that the parity judgments took longer
You can see in red the actual processing times in the parity judgment task We can extrapolate the location span values that would result from these durations
They are there And we can compare these values with the parity spans we observed As you can see these values are pretty close.
In summary, The mean location span observed was 5.23 And the mean location span predicted for longer durations equivalent to a parity judgement would be 4.48 That is exactly the mean parity span we observed
Thus there is no difference between tasks when durations were equated. Our question was And the answer is