Editorial: Representational states in memory: where do we stand?

A Comparison of the Storage-Only Deficit and Joint Mechanism Deficit Hypotheses of the Verbal Working Memory Storage Capacity Limitation of Children With Developmental Language Disorder

Purpose The storage-only deficit and joint mechanism deficit hypotheses are 2 possible explanations of the verbal working memory (vWM) storage capacity limitation of school-age children with developmental language disorder (DLD). We assessed the merits of each hypothesis in a large group of children with DLD and a group of same-age typically developing (TD) children. Method Participants were 117 children with DLD and 117 propensity-matched TD children 7-11 years of age. Children completed tasks indexing vWM capacity, verbal short-term storage, sustained attention, attention switching, and lexical long-term memory (LTM). Results For the DLD group, all of the mechanisms jointly explained 26.5% of total variance. Storage accounted for the greatest portion (13.7%), followed by controlled attention (primarily sustained attention; 6.5%) and then lexical LTM (5.6%). For the TD group, all 3 mechanisms together explained 43.9% of total variance. Storage accounted for the most variance (19.6%), followed by lexical LTM (16.0%), sustained attention (5.4%), and attention switching (3.0%). There was a significant LTM × Group interaction, in which stronger LTM scores were associated with significantly higher vWM capacity scores for the TD group as compared to the DLD group. Conclusions Results support a joint mechanism deficit account of the vWM capacity limitation of children with DLD. Results provide substantively new insights into the underlying factors of the vWM capacity limitation in DLD. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9932312.

Prioritizing Information during Working Memory: Beyond Sustained Internal Attention

Working memory (WM) has limited capacity. This leaves attention with the important role of allowing into storage only the most relevant information. It is increasingly evident that attention is equally crucial for prioritizing representations within WM as the importance of individual items changes. Retrospective prioritization has been proposed to result from a focus of internal attention highlighting one of several representations. Here, we suggest an updated model, in which prioritization acts in multiple steps: first orienting towards and selecting a memory, and then reconfiguring its representational state in the service of upcoming task demands. Reconfiguration sets up an optimized perception-action mapping, obviating the need for sustained attention. This view is consistent with recent literature, makes testable predictions, and links WM with task switching and action preparation.