Prioritization within visual working memory reflects a flexible focus of attention

How do intentions modulate the effect of working memory on long-term memory?

Previous studies found that working memory maintenance contributes to long-term memory formation, and some evidence suggests that this effect could be larger when individuals are informed of the final long-term memory test. However, no study so far has explored whether and how working memory maintenance adapts when long-term retention is intentional. In this study, we conducted two experiments using verbal complex span tasks followed by delayed-recall tests. In both experiments, we evaluated working memory maintenance by varying the cognitive load of the concurrent task and with memory strategies reports. We manipulated intentions to remember at long term by warning participants of the final delayed recall or not (Experiment 1) or by monetarily rewarding immediate or delayed-recall performance (Experiment 2). We found no evidence that intentions changed the working memory maintenance mechanisms and strategies used, yet the cognitive load (Experiment 1) and rewards (Experiment 2) effects on delayed recalls were increased with a higher intention to remember at long term. We discuss possible interpretations for these results and suggest that the effect of intentions may not be due to a change in the kind of maintenance mechanisms used. As our results cannot be explained solely by encoding or maintenance processes, we instead propose that intentions produce a combined change in encoding and maintenance. However, the exact nature of this modulation will need further investigation. We conclude that understanding how intentions modulate the effect of working memory on long-term memory could shed new light on their relationship.

The effect of reward expectation on working memory of emotional faces under different levels of cognitive load: an ERP study

Using event-related potentials (ERPs), this study examined the impact of reward expectations on working memory of emotional faces under different levels of cognitive load in a task combining the N-back paradigm and the reward expectation paradigm. The experiment involved presenting high- or low-reward cues followed by an N-back task for emotional faces with different loads. The accuracy results showed that under a high task load, both reward and emotion effects were significantly observed. However, these effects disappeared under a low task load. Analysis of the ERP data revealed that the early P2 and VPP components exhibited greater responses to fearful faces than to neutral faces. In the later stages, the P3 and LPP components showed greater reactions to high rewards than to low rewards. Additionally, the P2 component was found to be modulated by task load in relation to rewards, the EPN component demonstrated task load modulation with respect to emotions, and the N170 component showed an interaction effect between rewards and emotions. These findings imply that load regulates the reward effect and the emotional superiority effect in the process of working memory for emotional faces. In the cognitive processing of working memory, motivation and emotion jointly influence processing. Emotional factors have a greater impact in the early stage of processing, while motivation factors have a greater impact in the late stage of processing.

Working memory prioritisation effects in tactile immediate serial recall

There is a growing body of evidence that higher-value information can be prioritised for both visual and auditory working memory. The present study examines whether valuable items can similarly be prioritised for the tactile domain. Employing an immediate serial recall procedure (ISR), participants reconstructed a 6-item tactile sequence by moving their fingers in the order of original stimulation. Participants were informed either that one serial position was worth notionally more points (prioritisation condition) or that all items were of equal value (control condition). For Experiment 1 (N = 48), significant boosts in correct recall were evident when serial positions 4 or 5 were more valuable (i.e., prioritisation effects). Experiment 2 (N = 24) demonstrated that the prioritisation effect persisted with concurrent articulation, suggesting that task performance was not a function of verbal recoding and rehearsal of the tactile information. Importantly, a significant recall cost for low-value (non-prioritised) items within the sequence was evident for both experiments. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that (1) prioritisation effects transfer to the tactile domain and (2) finite attentional resources can be deliberately and strategically redistributed to specific items within a sequence, dependent upon the prevailing task demands.

Does value-based prioritization at working memory enhance long-term memory?

Research has demonstrated that individuals can direct their attention to valuable information in both working memory and long-term memory tasks with observable effects on performance. However, it is currently unclear whether prioritising an item for a working memory task automatically translates into a boost at long-term memory. This was examined in two experiments using relatively short (250 ms per item; Experiment 1) and longer (500 ms per item; Experiment 2) encoding times. Participants first completed a visual working memory task, in which they were presented with series of photographs of everyday objects. Following a brief delay (1,000 ms), they completed a four-alternative forced-choice test. Prior to encoding, participants were informed of the point values associated with each item. In some trials, the first item in the sequence was worth more points than the rest. In other trials, all items were equally valuable. After a filled delay, participants completed a surprise long-term memory task. At working memory, a value effect was reliably observed on recognition accuracy, along with some evidence of faster response times for high-value items. However, there was little consistent evidence of this effect automatically persisting into long-term memory. Thus, the benefits of attentional prioritization in working memory do not always translate into longer-term performance. More broadly, this provides further evidence that manipulations that enhance working memory performance do not necessarily enhance long-term memory.

Reward and loss incentives improve spatial working memory by shaping trial-by-trial posterior frontoparietal signals

Integrating motivational signals with cognition is critical for goal-directed activities. The mechanisms that link neural changes with motivated working memory continue to be understood. Here, we tested how externally cued and non-cued (internally represented) reward and loss impact spatial working memory precision and neural circuits in human subjects using fMRI. We translated the classic delayed-response spatial working memory paradigm from non-human primate studies to take advantage of a continuous numeric measure of working memory precision, and the wealth of translational neuroscience yielded by these studies. Our results demonstrated that both cued and non-cued reward and loss improved spatial working memory precision. Visual association regions of the posterior prefrontal and parietal cortices, specifically the precentral sulcus (PCS) and intraparietal sulcus (IPS), had increased BOLD signal during incentivized spatial working memory. A subset of these regions had trial-by-trial increases in BOLD signal that were associated with better working memory precision, suggesting that these regions may be critical for linking neural signals with motivated working memory. In contrast, regions straddling executive networks, including areas in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior parietal cortex and cerebellum displayed decreased BOLD signal during incentivized working memory. While reward and loss similarly impacted working memory processes, they dissociated during feedback when money won or avoided in loss was given based on working memory performance. During feedback, the trial-by-trial amount and valence of reward/loss received was dissociated amongst regions such as the ventral striatum, habenula and periaqueductal gray. Overall, this work suggests motivated spatial working memory is supported by complex sensory processes, and that the IPS and PCS in the posterior frontoparietal cortices may be key regions for integrating motivational signals with spatial working memory precision.

Reward Expectation Differentially Modulates Global and Local Spatial Working Memory Accuracy

Although it has been suggested that reward expectation affects the performance of spatial working memory tasks, controversial results have been found in previous experiments. Hence, it is still unclear to what extent reward expectation has an effect on working memory. To clarify this question, a memory-guided saccade task was applied, in which participants were instructed to retain and reconstruct a temporospatial sequence of four locations by moving their eyes in each trial. The global- and local-level spatial working memory accuracies were calculated to determine the reward effect on the global and local level of processing in spatial working memory tasks. Although high reward expectation enhanced the encoding of spatial information, the percentage of trials in which the cued location was correctly fixated decreased with increment of reward expectation. The reconstruction of the global temporospatial sequence was enhanced by reward expectation, whereas the local reconstruction performance was not affected by reward. Furthermore, the improvements in local representations of uncued locations and local sequences were at the cost of the representation of cued locations. The results suggest that the reward effect on spatial working memory is modulated by the level of processing, which supports the flexible resource theory during maintenance.

How do we measure attention? Using factor analysis to establish construct validity of neuropsychological tests

We investigated whether standardized neuropsychological tests and experimental cognitive paradigms measure the same cognitive faculties. Specifically, do neuropsychological tests commonly used to assess attention measure the same construct as attention paradigms used in cognitive psychology and neuroscience? We built on the “general attention factor”, comprising several widely used experimental paradigms (Huang et al., 2012). Participants (n = 636) completed an on-line battery (TestMyBrain.org) of six experimental tests [Multiple Object Tracking, Flanker Interference, Visual Working Memory, Approximate Number Sense, Spatial Configuration Visual Search, and Gradual Onset Continuous Performance Task (Grad CPT)] and eight neuropsychological tests [Trail Making Test versions A & B (TMT-A, TMT-B), Digit Symbol Coding, Forward and Backward Digit Span, Letter Cancellation, Spatial Span, and Arithmetic]. Exploratory factor analysis in a subset of 357 participants identified a five-factor structure: (1) attentional capacity (Multiple Object Tracking, Visual Working Memory, Digit Symbol Coding, Spatial Span), (2) search (Visual Search, TMT-A, TMT-B, Letter Cancellation); (3) Digit Span; (4) Arithmetic; and (5) Sustained Attention (GradCPT). Confirmatory analysis in 279 held-out participants showed that this model fit better than competing models. A hierarchical model where a general cognitive factor was imposed above the five specific factors fit as well as the model without the general factor. We conclude that Digit Span and Arithmetic tests should not be classified as attention tests. Digit Symbol Coding and Spatial Span tap attentional capacity, while TMT-A, TMT-B, and Letter Cancellation tap search (or attention-shifting) ability. These five tests can be classified as attention tests.

Attentional flexibility and prioritization improves long-term memory

Recent evidence suggests the focus of attention (FoA) is a flexible resource within working memory (WM) used to temporarily maintain some information in a highly accessible state. This flexibility comes at the expense of other representations, demonstrating a resource trade-off in WM maintenance. The present experiments evaluate how flexibility within the FoA impacts long-term memory (LTM) for semantically meaningful information. A WM probe-recognition task was used in which two items were presented in black and a single item was presented in red. To encourage the prioritization and uninterrupted preferential maintenance of specific items, a process we call online refreshing, the red item was associated with a greater point-reward value than were the black items. This WM task was followed by a surprise delayed LTM test. In Experiment 1, the FoA flexibly adjusted to maintain non-recent semantic information with evidence for a resource trade-off across list positions. Flexibility also directly improved LTM. In Experiment 2, reward value was equated across red and black items to evaluate whether an alternative explanation, distinctiveness of encoding, could account for the LTM findings. When reward value was equated, the cued item did not encourage flexible orienting of the FoA toward non-recent items and there was no benefit of the distinct red item on LTM performance. While supportive of past research, these data further demonstrate that semantic information can be flexibly prioritized at the expense of other list positions and that this is directly tied to improvements in LTM.