Limits...
Executive Resources and Item-Context Binding: Exploring the Influence of Concurrent Inhibition, Updating, and Shifting Tasks on Context Memory.

Nieznański M, Obidziński M, Zyskowska E, Niedziałkowska D - Adv Cogn Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: Previous research has demonstrated that context memory performance decreases as a result of cognitive load.In comparison with a no-load single-task condition, a significant decrease in item and context memory was observed, regardless of the kind of executive task.When executive load conditions were compared with non-specific cognitive load conditions, a significant interference effect was observed in the case of the inhibition task.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Psychology, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland.

ABSTRACT
Previous research has demonstrated that context memory performance decreases as a result of cognitive load. However, the role of specific executive resources availability has not been specified yet. In a dual-task experiment, participants performed three kinds of concurrent task engaging: inhibition, updating, or shifting operations. In comparison with a no-load single-task condition, a significant decrease in item and context memory was observed, regardless of the kind of executive task. When executive load conditions were compared with non-specific cognitive load conditions, a significant interference effect was observed in the case of the inhibition task. The inhibition process appears to be an aspect of executive control, which relies on the same resource as item-context binding does, especially when binding refers to associations retrieved from long-term memory.

No MeSH data available.


Processing tree multinomial model constructed for experiments withrelated, opposite and neutral trials (Nieznański, 2013). Item types are defined on the left,response types on the right side of the graph. Latent cognitiveprocesses postulated by the model are the following:DRel = the probability of detecting anold item at related trials ; DOpp = theprobability of detecting an old item at opposite trials;DNeu-Col1 = the probability of detectingan old item related to the neutral colour but printed in Colour 1;DNeu-Col2= the probability of detectingan old item related to the neutral colour but printed in Colour 2;DNew-Col1/Col2 = the probability ofdetecting new items related to Colour 1 or Colour 2;DNew-neut = the probability of detectingnew items related to the neutral colour;dRel = the probability of correctlydiscriminating the context of an item at related trials;dOpp = the probability of correctlydiscriminating the context of an item at opposite trials;dNeu-Col1 = the probability of correctlydiscriminating the context of an item related to neutral colour butprinted in Colour 1; dNeu-Col2 = theprobability of correctly discriminating the context of an item relatedto neutral colour but printed in Colour 2;aExp = the probability of guessing thata detected item was presented at study with an expected colour ;gExp = the probability of guessing thatan undetected item was presented at study with an expected colour;aNeu = the probability of guessing thata detected item related to neutral colour was presented in Colour 1;gNeutral = the probability of guessingthat an undetected item related to neutral colour was presented inColour 1; b = the probability of guessing ‘old’ to undetected item.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4591844&req=5

FB1: Processing tree multinomial model constructed for experiments withrelated, opposite and neutral trials (Nieznański, 2013). Item types are defined on the left,response types on the right side of the graph. Latent cognitiveprocesses postulated by the model are the following:DRel = the probability of detecting anold item at related trials ; DOpp = theprobability of detecting an old item at opposite trials;DNeu-Col1 = the probability of detectingan old item related to the neutral colour but printed in Colour 1;DNeu-Col2= the probability of detectingan old item related to the neutral colour but printed in Colour 2;DNew-Col1/Col2 = the probability ofdetecting new items related to Colour 1 or Colour 2;DNew-neut = the probability of detectingnew items related to the neutral colour;dRel = the probability of correctlydiscriminating the context of an item at related trials;dOpp = the probability of correctlydiscriminating the context of an item at opposite trials;dNeu-Col1 = the probability of correctlydiscriminating the context of an item related to neutral colour butprinted in Colour 1; dNeu-Col2 = theprobability of correctly discriminating the context of an item relatedto neutral colour but printed in Colour 2;aExp = the probability of guessing thata detected item was presented at study with an expected colour ;gExp = the probability of guessing thatan undetected item was presented at study with an expected colour;aNeu = the probability of guessing thata detected item related to neutral colour was presented in Colour 1;gNeutral = the probability of guessingthat an undetected item related to neutral colour was presented inColour 1; b = the probability of guessing ‘old’ to undetected item.

Mentions: A version of the multinomial model used in the present experiment was takenfrom Nieznaski (2013) that, in turn,was based on a two-high-threshold model of source monitoring developed byBayen, Murnane, and Erdfelder (1996).In this model, latent cognitive processes of item detection, context memory,and three kinds of response biases are represented by separate parameters.The probabilities of correct detection of items from particular contexts arerepresented by parameter D. If an item was recognised asold, parameter d represents the probability of accuratecontext memory. The old items detected as old but not context-discriminatedare subject to a guessing process; parameter a representsthe probability of guessing that an item belongs to a particular context. Ifa new or old item is undetected, the observer may guess it is old withprobability b. Then, g is the probabilityof guessing that this undetected item guessed to be an old one is from aparticular context. In the version of the model used in the currentexperiment (see Figure B1 in AppendixB), each class of items has its specific detection and context memoryparameters (e.g., dRelated,dOpposite,dNeutral). Bias parameters are also specificto the class of tested items; for a word whose meaning is related to one ofthe study colours there may be a tendency to guess that it was printed inthat colour at study (e.g., aExpected), whereasfor a word whose meaning is related to a colour not used during the study,there should be no preference for one study colour over the other(aNeutral). The full version of the modelcontains too many parameters in relation to degrees of freedom in the data.Therefore, it is not mathematically identifiable and several restrictionshad to be imposed on the parameters. These restrictions are described in theResults section of the experiment. The goodness of fit of the model to theempirical data was tested with the log-likelihood ratio statistic(G2) which is distributed asymptotically asa χ2 distribution. For more detailed information aboutmultinomial modelling for context (source) memory tasks see, for example,Batchelder and Riefer (1990) orBröder and Meiser (2007). Anlevel of .05 was used for all statistical tests. At this level,G2(1) = 3.84 indicates a critical value.Response frequencies are shown in Appendix A. All computations were carriedout with the multiTree computer program (Moshagen, 2010).


Executive Resources and Item-Context Binding: Exploring the Influence of Concurrent Inhibition, Updating, and Shifting Tasks on Context Memory.

Nieznański M, Obidziński M, Zyskowska E, Niedziałkowska D - Adv Cogn Psychol (2015)

Processing tree multinomial model constructed for experiments withrelated, opposite and neutral trials (Nieznański, 2013). Item types are defined on the left,response types on the right side of the graph. Latent cognitiveprocesses postulated by the model are the following:DRel = the probability of detecting anold item at related trials ; DOpp = theprobability of detecting an old item at opposite trials;DNeu-Col1 = the probability of detectingan old item related to the neutral colour but printed in Colour 1;DNeu-Col2= the probability of detectingan old item related to the neutral colour but printed in Colour 2;DNew-Col1/Col2 = the probability ofdetecting new items related to Colour 1 or Colour 2;DNew-neut = the probability of detectingnew items related to the neutral colour;dRel = the probability of correctlydiscriminating the context of an item at related trials;dOpp = the probability of correctlydiscriminating the context of an item at opposite trials;dNeu-Col1 = the probability of correctlydiscriminating the context of an item related to neutral colour butprinted in Colour 1; dNeu-Col2 = theprobability of correctly discriminating the context of an item relatedto neutral colour but printed in Colour 2;aExp = the probability of guessing thata detected item was presented at study with an expected colour ;gExp = the probability of guessing thatan undetected item was presented at study with an expected colour;aNeu = the probability of guessing thata detected item related to neutral colour was presented in Colour 1;gNeutral = the probability of guessingthat an undetected item related to neutral colour was presented inColour 1; b = the probability of guessing ‘old’ to undetected item.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4591844&req=5

FB1: Processing tree multinomial model constructed for experiments withrelated, opposite and neutral trials (Nieznański, 2013). Item types are defined on the left,response types on the right side of the graph. Latent cognitiveprocesses postulated by the model are the following:DRel = the probability of detecting anold item at related trials ; DOpp = theprobability of detecting an old item at opposite trials;DNeu-Col1 = the probability of detectingan old item related to the neutral colour but printed in Colour 1;DNeu-Col2= the probability of detectingan old item related to the neutral colour but printed in Colour 2;DNew-Col1/Col2 = the probability ofdetecting new items related to Colour 1 or Colour 2;DNew-neut = the probability of detectingnew items related to the neutral colour;dRel = the probability of correctlydiscriminating the context of an item at related trials;dOpp = the probability of correctlydiscriminating the context of an item at opposite trials;dNeu-Col1 = the probability of correctlydiscriminating the context of an item related to neutral colour butprinted in Colour 1; dNeu-Col2 = theprobability of correctly discriminating the context of an item relatedto neutral colour but printed in Colour 2;aExp = the probability of guessing thata detected item was presented at study with an expected colour ;gExp = the probability of guessing thatan undetected item was presented at study with an expected colour;aNeu = the probability of guessing thata detected item related to neutral colour was presented in Colour 1;gNeutral = the probability of guessingthat an undetected item related to neutral colour was presented inColour 1; b = the probability of guessing ‘old’ to undetected item.
Mentions: A version of the multinomial model used in the present experiment was takenfrom Nieznaski (2013) that, in turn,was based on a two-high-threshold model of source monitoring developed byBayen, Murnane, and Erdfelder (1996).In this model, latent cognitive processes of item detection, context memory,and three kinds of response biases are represented by separate parameters.The probabilities of correct detection of items from particular contexts arerepresented by parameter D. If an item was recognised asold, parameter d represents the probability of accuratecontext memory. The old items detected as old but not context-discriminatedare subject to a guessing process; parameter a representsthe probability of guessing that an item belongs to a particular context. Ifa new or old item is undetected, the observer may guess it is old withprobability b. Then, g is the probabilityof guessing that this undetected item guessed to be an old one is from aparticular context. In the version of the model used in the currentexperiment (see Figure B1 in AppendixB), each class of items has its specific detection and context memoryparameters (e.g., dRelated,dOpposite,dNeutral). Bias parameters are also specificto the class of tested items; for a word whose meaning is related to one ofthe study colours there may be a tendency to guess that it was printed inthat colour at study (e.g., aExpected), whereasfor a word whose meaning is related to a colour not used during the study,there should be no preference for one study colour over the other(aNeutral). The full version of the modelcontains too many parameters in relation to degrees of freedom in the data.Therefore, it is not mathematically identifiable and several restrictionshad to be imposed on the parameters. These restrictions are described in theResults section of the experiment. The goodness of fit of the model to theempirical data was tested with the log-likelihood ratio statistic(G2) which is distributed asymptotically asa χ2 distribution. For more detailed information aboutmultinomial modelling for context (source) memory tasks see, for example,Batchelder and Riefer (1990) orBröder and Meiser (2007). Anlevel of .05 was used for all statistical tests. At this level,G2(1) = 3.84 indicates a critical value.Response frequencies are shown in Appendix A. All computations were carriedout with the multiTree computer program (Moshagen, 2010).

Bottom Line: Previous research has demonstrated that context memory performance decreases as a result of cognitive load.In comparison with a no-load single-task condition, a significant decrease in item and context memory was observed, regardless of the kind of executive task.When executive load conditions were compared with non-specific cognitive load conditions, a significant interference effect was observed in the case of the inhibition task.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Psychology, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland.

ABSTRACT
Previous research has demonstrated that context memory performance decreases as a result of cognitive load. However, the role of specific executive resources availability has not been specified yet. In a dual-task experiment, participants performed three kinds of concurrent task engaging: inhibition, updating, or shifting operations. In comparison with a no-load single-task condition, a significant decrease in item and context memory was observed, regardless of the kind of executive task. When executive load conditions were compared with non-specific cognitive load conditions, a significant interference effect was observed in the case of the inhibition task. The inhibition process appears to be an aspect of executive control, which relies on the same resource as item-context binding does, especially when binding refers to associations retrieved from long-term memory.

No MeSH data available.