On the law relating processing to storage in working memory.

Working memory is usually defined in cognitive psychology as a system devoted to the simultaneous processing and maintenance of information. However, although many models of working memory have been put forward during the last decades, they often leave underspecified the dynamic interplay between processing and storage. Moreover, the account of their interaction proposed by the most popular A. D. Baddeley and G. Hitch's (1974) multiple-component model is contradicted by facts, leaving unresolved one of the main issues of cognitive functioning. In this article, the author derive from the time-based resource-sharing model of working memory a mathematical function relating the cognitive load involved by concurrent processing to the amount of information that can be simultaneously maintained active in working memory. A meta-analysis from several experiments testing the effects of processing on storage corroborates the parameters of the predicted function, suggesting that it properly reflects the law relating the 2 functions of working memory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Time-related decay or interference-based forgetting in working memory?

The time-based resource-sharing model of working memory assumes that memory traces suffer from a time-related decay when attention is occupied by concurrent activities. Using complex continuous span tasks in which temporal parameters are carefully controlled, P. Barrouillet, S. Bernardin, S. Portrat, E. Vergauwe, & V. Camos (2007) recently provided evidence that any increase in time of the processing component of these tasks results in lower recall performance. However, K. Oberauer and R. Kliegl (2006) pointed out that, in this paradigm, increased processing times are accompanied by a corollary decrease of the remaining time during which attention is available to refresh memory traces. As a consequence, the main determinant of recall performance in complex span tasks would not be the duration of attentional capture inducing time-related decay, as Barrouillet et al. (2007) claimed, but the time available to repair memory traces, and thus would be compatible with an interference account of forgetting. The authors demonstrate here that even when the time available to refresh memory traces is kept constant, increasing the processing time still results in poorer recall, confirming that time-related decay is the source of forgetting within working memory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Further evidence for temporal decay in working memory: Reply to Lewandowsky and Oberauer (2009).

The sources of forgetting in working memory (WM) are a matter of intense debate: Is there a time-related decay of memory traces, or is forgetting uniquely due to representation-based interference? In a previous study, we claimed to have provided evidence supporting the temporal decay hypothesis (S. Portrat, P. Barrouillet, & V. Camos, 2008). However, reanalyzing our data, S. Lewandowsky and K. Oberauer (2009) demonstrated that they do not provide compelling evidence for temporal decay and suggested a class of alternative models favoring a representation-based interference account. In this article, we develop from the most recent proposals made by Lewandowsky and Oberauer 2 of the most plausible extensions of these alternative models. We show that neither of these extensions can account for recent findings related to between-domain WM performance and that both lead to predictions that are contradicted by new empirical evidence. Finally, we show that recent studies that have been claimed to rule out the temporal decay hypothesis do not resist close scrutiny. We conclude that the time-based resource-sharing model remains the most parsimonious way to account for forgetting and restoration of memory traces in WM. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Time and cognitive load in working memory.

According to the time-based resource-sharing model (P. Barrouillet, S. Bernardin, & V. Camos, 2004), the cognitive load a given task involves is a function of the proportion of time during which it captures attention, thus impeding other attention-demanding processes. Accordingly, the present study demonstrates that the disruptive effect on concurrent maintenance of memory retrievals and response selections increases with their duration. Moreover, the effect on recall performance of concurrent activities does not go beyond their duration insofar as the processes are attention demanding. Finally, these effects are not modality specific, as spatial processing was found to disrupt verbal maintenance. These results suggest a sequential and time-based function of working memory in which processing and storage rely on a single and general purpose attentional resource needed to run executive processes devoted to constructing, maintaining, and modifying ephemeral representations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)