The influence of learning on robustness of working memory to distractors
Ermolova, M.; Belyaeva, V.; Novikov, N.; Fedele, T.; Moiseeva, V.; Gutkin, B.; Feurra, M.
Show abstract
Inhibition of irrelevant information is a crucial process within the working memory (WM) system. In the present study, we explored how inhibition of distractors is learned within a Sternberg-like WM task and how this learning process affects readout performance. We introduced distractors of varying strength as well as novel stimuli to a classic Sternberg task. Our findings show that the length of the training period affected obstructiveness of distractors as well as differences between WM loads. Significant differences between conditions observed early on in accuracy became void after general ceiling performance was reached. Moreover, accuracy and reaction times, which are commonly used as readouts of WM performance, were affected differently by training. While both improved significantly, only accuracy exhibited differential dependency of experimental conditions on training. It is essential to consider these dynamics when introducing a WM task which requires a long training period.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Relationship between Latent Inhibition, Divergent Thinking, and Eyewitness Memory: A Study on Attention to Irrelevant Stimuli 96%
- Retrieval of a well-established skill is resistant to distraction: evidence from an implicit probabilistic sequence learning task 96%
- Symbolic and Non-Symbolic numbers differently affect centre identification in a number-line bisection task 96%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Sounds and Sights in Sequence Learning: Can Accessory Auditory Cues Enhance Motor Task Performance? 95%
- Methods matter: your measures of explicit and implicit processes in visuomotor adaptation affect your results 94%
- Temporally distinct oscillatory codes of retention and manipulation of verbal working memory 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.