Magnitude and sources of proactive interference in visual memory

The resolution of proactive interference in a novel visual working memory task: A behavioral and pupillometric study

Proactive interference (PI) occurs when previously learned information impairs memory for more recently learned information. Most PI studies have employed verbal stimuli, while the role of PI in visual working memory (VWM) has had relatively little attention. In the verbal domain, Johansson and colleagues (2018) found that pupil diameter - a real-time neurophysiological index of cognitive effort - reflects the accumulation and resolution of PI. Here we use a novel, naturalistic paradigm to test the behavioral and pupillary correlates of PI resolution for what-was-where item-location bindings in VWM. Importantly, in our paradigm, trials (PI vs. no-PI condition) are mixed in a block, and participants are naïve to the condition until they are tested. This design sidesteps concerns about differences in encoding strategies or generalized effort differences between conditions. Across three experiments (N = 122 total) we assessed PI's effect on VWM and whether PI resolution during memory retrieval is associated with greater cognitive effort (as indexed by the phasic, task-evoked pupil response). We found strong support for PI's detrimental effect on VWM (even with our spatially distributed stimuli), but no consistent link between interference resolution and effort during memory retrieval (this, even though the pupil was a reliable indicator that higher-performing individuals tried harder during memory encoding). We speculate that when explicit strategies are minimized, and PI resolution relies primarily on implicit processing, the effect may not be sufficient to trigger a robust pupillometric response.

Tracking Proactive Interference in Visual Memory

The current contents of visual working memory can be disrupted by previously formed memories. This phenomenon is known as proactive interference, and it can be used to index the availability of old memories. However, there is uncertainty about the robustness and lifetime of proactive interference, which raises important questions about the role of temporal factors in forgetting. The present study assessed different factors that were expected to influence the persistence of proactive interference over an inter-trial interval in the visual recent probes task. In three experiments, participants encoded arrays of targets and then determined whether a single probe matched one of those targets. On some trials, the probe matched an item from the previous trial (a “recent negative”), whereas on other trials the probe matched a more distant item (a “non-recent negative”). Prior studies have found that recent negative probes can increase errors and slow response times in comparison to non-recent negative probes, and this offered a behavioral measure of proactive interference. In Experiment 1, factors of array size (the number of targets to be encoded) and inter-trial interval (300 ms vs. 8 s) were manipulated in the recent probes task. There was a reduction in proactive interference when a longer delay separated trials on one measure, but only when participants encoded two targets. When working memory capacity was strained by increasing the array size to four targets, proactive interference became stronger after the long delay. In Experiment 2, the inter-trial interval length was again manipulated, along with stimulus novelty (the number of stimuli used in the experiment). Proactive interference was modestly stronger when a smaller number of stimuli were used throughout the experiment, but proactive interference was minimally affected by the inter-trial interval. These findings are problematic for temporal models of forgetting, but Experiment 3 showed that proactive interference also resisted disruption produced by a secondary task presented within the inter-trial interval. Proactive interference was constantly present and generally resilient to the different manipulations. The combined data suggest a relatively durable, passive representation that can disrupt current working memory under a variety of different circumstances.