Footnote 3. When comparing the not-instructed conditions between the studies (i.e., all conditions of the Vergauwe et al. study and the No delay and Empty delay conditions of the current study), there is a difference in the distribution of matches over the list items: In the Vergauwe et al. (2016) study, target-present probes were evenly distributed across the list items, while in the current not-instructed conditions, we used a different distribution of matches to increase the number of data points in the cells of interest and thus, 1/3 of the probes matched the last-presented item. It is important to note that it is difficult to account for the difference between the studies in terms of a prioritization account. If participants were strategically prioritizing the memory items that were more likely to match the probe, we would have expected participants to prioritize the last-presented item in the No delay and Empty delay conditions of the current experiments, resulting in a clear last-presented benefit in these conditions across all experiments. This is clearly not what we observed. The other way around, in the Vergauwe et al. (2016) study, the last-presented item was as likely as any other list item to match the probe and, despite this even distribution, we consistently observed a last-presented benefit.
References
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence and J. T. Spence (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89-195).
New York: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423.
Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple component model.
In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory (pp. 28-61). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Barrouillet, P. (1996). Transitive inferences from set-inclusion relations and working
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1408-1422.
Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., & Camos, V. (2004). Time constraints and resource sharing in adults’ working memory spans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 83-100.
Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., Portrat, S., Vergauwe, E., & Camos, V. (2007). Time and cognitive load in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 570-585.
Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2012). As time goes by: Temporal constraints in working memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 413-419.
Barrouillet, P., Portrat, S., Camos, V. (2011). On the law relating processing to storage in working memory. Pyschological Review, 118, 175-192.
Basak, C. & Verhaeghen, P. (2011). Three layers of working memory: Focus-switch costs and retrieval dynamics as revealed by the N-count task. Journal of Cognitive Psychology,
23, 204-219.
Brown, G.D., Neath, I., & Chater, N. (2007). A temporal ratio model of memory.
Psychological Review, 114, 539-576.
Burrows, D., & Okada, R. (1971). Serial position effects in highspeed memory search.
Perception & Psychophysics, 10, 305-308.
Camos, V. & Barrouillet, P. (2014). Attentional and non-attentional systems in the maintenance of verbal information in working memory: The executive and phonological loops. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8: 900.
Camos, V., Lagner, P., & Barrouillet, P. (2009). Two maintenance mechanisms of verbal information in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 457-469.
Camos, V., & Portrat, S. (2015). The impact of cognitive load on delayed recall. Psychonomic bulletin & Review, 22, 1029-1034.
Chen, Z., & Cowan, N. (2009). How verbal memory loads consume attention.Memory &
Cognition, 37, 829-836.
Clifton, C., & Birenbaum, S. (1970). Effects of serial position and delay of probe in a memory scan task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 69-76.
Cowan, N. (1992). Verbal memory span and the timing of spoken recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 668-684.
Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cowan, N. (2011). The focus of attention as observed in visual working memory tasks:
Making sense of competing claims. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1401-1406.
Daneman, M. & Merikle, P.M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 422-433.
DeStefano, D. & LeFrevre, J.-A. (2004). The role of working memory in mental arithmetic.
European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 353-386.
Donkin, C., & Nosofsky, R.M. (2012). The structure of short-term memory scanning: an investigation using response time distribution models. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 19, 363-394.
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2014). Removal of information from working memory: A specific updating process. Journal of Memory and Language, 74, 77-90.
Ecker, U. K. H., Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2014). Working memory updating involves item-specific removal. Journal of Memory and Language, 74, 1-15.
Engle, R.W., Cantor, J., & Carullo, J.J. (1992). Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: A test of four hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 972-992.
Garavan, H. (1998). Serial attention within working memory. Memory & Cognition, 26, 263-276.
Halford, G.S., Wilson, W.H., & Phillips S. Processing capacity defined by relational
complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology.
Behavioral and Brain Science, 21, 803-831.
Harrison, T.L., Shipstead, Z., & Engle, R. (2015). Why is working memory capacity related to matrix reasoning tasks? Memory & Cognition. 43: 389-396.
Higgins, J.A., & Johnson, M.K. (2009). The consequence of refreshing for access to nonselected items in young and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 37, 164-174.
Hu, Y., Hitch, G.J., Baddeley, A.D., Zhang, M., & Allen, R.J. (2014). Executive and perceptual attention play different roles in visual working memory: Evidence from
suffix and strategy effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1665-1678.
Hudjetz, A., & Oberauer, K. (2007). The effects of processing time and processing rate on forgetting in working memory: Testing four models of the complex span paradigm.
Memory & Cognition, 35, 1675-1684.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
JASP Team (2016). JASP (Version 0.8.0.0) [Computer software].
Johnson, M.R., Higgins, J.A., Norman, K.A., Sederberg, P.B., Smith, T.A., & Johnson, M.K.
(2013). Foraging for thought: An inhibition-of-return effect resulting from directing attention within working memory. Psychological Science, 24, 1104-1112.
Johnson, M. K., Reeder, J. A., Raye, C. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2002). Second thoughts versus second looks: An age-related deficit in reflectively refreshing just-activated
information. Psychological Science, 13, 64-67.
Johnston, J.C., McCann, R.S., & Remington, R.W. (1995). Chronometric evidence for two types of attention. Psychological Science, 6, 365-369.
Jolicoeur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of short-term consolidation.
Cognitive Psychology, 36, 138-202.
Kiyonaga, A., & Egner, T. (2013). The working memory stroop effect: When internal representations clash with external stimuli. Psychological Science, 25, 1619-1629.
Kyllonen, P.C., & Christal, R.E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity?! Intelligence, 14, 389-433.
Lewandowsky S., & Oberauer K. (2015). Rehearsal in serial recall: An unworkable solution to the nonexistent problem of decay. Psychological Review, 122, 674-699.
Lilienthal, L., Hale, S., & Myerson, J. (2015). The effects of environmental support and secondary tasks on visuospatial working memory. Memory and Cognition, 42, 1118-1129.
Loaiza, V. M., & McCabe, D. P. (2012). Temporal–contextual processing in working memory: Evidence from delayed cued recall and delayed free recall tests. Memory &
cognition, 40(2), 191-203.
McCabe, D. P. (2008). The role of covert retrieval in working memory span tasks: Evidence from delayed recall tests. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 480-494.
McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 46. San Diego: Academic Press.
McElree, B., & Dosher, B. A. (1989). Serial position and set size in short-term memory: The time course of recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 346-373.
Moorselaar, D. van, Günseli, E., Theeuwes, J. & Olivers, C.N.L. (2015). The time course of protecting a visual memory representation from perceptual interference. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1053.
Morrison, A., Conway, A., & Chein, J. (2014). Primacy and Recency Effects as Indices of the Focus of Attention. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 24(8), 6.
Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Jonides, J. (1984). Maintenance rehearsal: A two-component
analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 369-385
Nee, D. E., & Jonides, J. (2013). Trisecting representational states in short-term memory.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 796.
Nee, D. E., & Jonides, J. (2008) Neural correlates of access to short-term memory.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 15, 14228-14233.
Oberauer, K. (2002). Access to information in working memory: Exploring the focus of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 411-421.
Oberauer, K., Farrell, S., Jarrold, C., Pasiecznik, K., & Greaves, M. (2012). Interference between maintenance and processing in working memory: The effect of item–
distractor similarity in complex span. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 665-685.
Oberauer, K., & Hein, L. (2012). Attention to information in working memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 164–169.
Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2011). Modeling working memory: a computational implementation of the Time-Based Resource-Sharing theory. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 18, 10-45.
Oberauer K., & Lewandowsky S. (2016). Control of information in working memory:
Encoding and removal of distractors in the complex-span paradigm. Cognition, 156, 106-128.
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Farrell, S., Jarrold, C., & Greaves, M. (2012). Modeling working memory: An interference model of complex span. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 19, 779–819.
Oftinger, A., & Camos, V. (2016). Maintenance mechanisms in children’s verbal working memory. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 6.
Öztekin, I., Davachi, L., & McElree, B. (2010). Are representations in working memory distinct from representations in long-term memory? Psychological Science, 21, 1123-1133.
Posner, M.I. (1980). Orienting of attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3-25.
Portrat, S., Guida, A., Phénix, T., & Lemaire, B. (2016). Promoting the experimental dialogue between working memory and chunking: Behavioral data and simulation. Memory &
Cognition, 44, 420-434.
Raye, C. L., Johnson, M. K., Mitchell, K. J., Reeder, J. A., & Greene, E. J. (2002).
Neuroimaging a single thought: Dorsolateral PFC activity associated with refreshing just-activated information. NeuroImage, 15, 447-453.
Raye, C.L., Johnson, M.K., Mitchell, K.J., Greene, E.J., & Johnson, M.R. (2007).
Refreshing: A minimal executive function. Cortex, 43, 135-145.
Ricker, T.J. & Cowan, N. (2010). Loss of visual working memory within seconds: The combined use of refreshable and non-refreshable features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 1355-68.
Ricker, T., Vergauwe, E., & Cowan, N. (2016). Decay theory of immediate memory : From Brown (1958) to Today (2014). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 1969-1995.
Rouder, J.N. (2014). Optional stopping: No problem for Bayesians. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21, 301-308.
Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Speckman, P. L. and Province, J. M. (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 356-374.
Sandry, J., Schwark, J. D. & MacDonald, J. (2014). Flexibility within working memory and the focus of attention for sequential verbal information does not depend on active maintenance. Memory & Cognition, 42, 1130 – 1142.
Seamon, J.G. (1976). Generative processes in character classification: II. A refined testing procedure. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7, 327-330.
Souza, A. S., Rerko, L., & Oberauer, K. (2015). Refreshing memory traces: Thinking of an item improves retrieval from visual working memory. Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences, 1339, 20-31.
Sternberg, S. (1966). High speed scanning in human memory. Science, 153, 652–654.
Süß, H.M., Oberauer, K., Wittmann, W.W., Wilhelm, O., & Schulze, R. (2002).
Working-memory capacity explains reasoning ability -- and a little bit more.
Intelligence, 30, 261-288.
Vergauwe, E., Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2009). Visual and spatial working memory are not that dissociated after all: A Time-Based Resource sharing account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1012-1028.
Vergauwe, E., Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2010). Do mental processes share a domain-general resource? Psychological Science, 21, 384-390.
Vergauwe, E., Camos, V., & Barrouillet, P. (2014). The effect of storage on processing: How is information maintained in working memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1072-1095.
Vergauwe, E., & Cowan, N. (2014). A common Short-Term Memory retrieval rate may describe many cognitive procedures. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8:126.
Vergauwe, E., & Cowan, N. (2015). Attending to items in working memory: Evidence that refreshing and memory search are closely related. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 22, 1001-1006.
Vergauwe, E., Hardman, K., Rouder, J., Roemer, E., McAllaster, S., & Cowan, N. (2016).
Searching for serial refreshing in working memory: Using response times to track the content of the focus of attention over time. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23, 1818-1824.
Waugh, N.C., & Norman, D.A. (1965). Primary memory. Psychological Review, 72, 89-104.
Table 1
Evidence in the data for (in green) or against (in red) the last-presented benefit and the just-refreshed benefit in Experiments 1 through 5 as well as the Control Experiment. Bayes factors are from paired, one-sided t-tests testing the described benefits (for the last-presented benefit: faster responses for last-presented item, compared to other target-present probes; for the just-refreshed benefit: faster responses for just-refreshed item, compared to other target-present probes). Note: AS = articulatory suppression
No delay Empty delay Instructed-refreshing delay Last-presented
350 ms/item + Uniform probe distribution 29 participants
-- -- 21.59 34606
Table 2
Mean accuracy (and SD) for probes matching the just-refreshed item vs. probes matching other list items in the Instructed-refreshing condition, for Experiments 1 through 5, as well as the Control Experiment. Note: AS = articulatory suppression
Just-refreshed item Other target-present probes
Experiment 1 1000 ms/item
.94 (.06) .89 (.10)
Experiment 2 500 ms/item
.93 (.08) .84 (.13)
Experiment 3 1000 ms/item
.94 (.09) .90 (.11)
Experiment 4 350 ms/item
.92 (.09) .88 (.12)
Experiment 5 1000 ms/item + AS
.77 (.15) .75 (.12)
Control Experiment
350 ms/item + Uniform probe distribution
.92 (.09) .89 (.09)
Table 3
Mean accuracy (and SD) for probes matching the last-presented item vs. probes matching other list items (excluding probes matching the just-refreshed item) per experimental condition (No delay, Empty delay, Instructed refreshing), for Experiments 1 through 5, as well as for the Control Experiment. Note: AS = articulatory suppression
No delay Empty delay Instructed refreshing
Last-presented item Other target-present
A
B
Presentation time per memory item (+brief delay following each memory item)
Environmental support
+ 250 ms (fixation cross with four empty boxes)
yes Randomly intermixed No
Experiment 2 250 ms
+ 250 ms (fixation cross with four empty boxes)
No (only fixation cross)
Blocked No
Experiment 3 750 ms
+ 250 ms (only fixation cross)
No (only fixation cross)
Blocked No
Experiment 4 250 ms
+ 100 ms (only fixation cross)
No (only fixation cross)
Blocked No
Experiment 5 750 ms
+ 250 ms (only fixation cross)
No (only fixation cross)
Blocked Yes
Figure 1. A) Illustration of a trial in each of the experimental conditions: No delay, Empty delay, and Instructed-refreshing delay. Series of four letters in upper case were presented in four boxes and a probe letter in lower case was presented at the end of each trial, with the probe to be judged present in or absent from the list. In each experiment, there were three experimental conditions: (1) there was no delay before the probe, see upper panel; (2) there was an empty delay before the probe, see middle panel; (3) there was a delay before the probe during which
participants were instructed to refresh list items according to cues (sequential highlighting of boxes), see lower panel. B) Table reporting experimental factors that could change from one experiment to another: presentation time per memory item (and brief delay following each memory item), presence of environmental support during empty delay, presentation of trials of different Delay conditions, and the presence of articulatory suppression during encoding and retention.
Figure 2. Mean response times in ms for probes matching the just-refreshed item vs. probes matching other list items, for Experiments 1 through 5 as well as the Control Experiment.
Error bars show standard errors of the mean.
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Experiment 3
Experiment 4
Experiment 5
Control Experiment
Correct RT
Just-refreshed Other target-present probes
Figure 3. Mean response times in ms for probes matching the last-presented item vs. probes matching other list items (excluding probes matching the just-refreshed item) per experimental condition: No delay (upper panel), Empty delay (middle panel), and Instructed-refreshing condition (lower panel), for Experiments 1 through 5 (as well as the Control Experiment for the Instructed-refreshing condition). Error bars show standard errors of the mean.