1. Parallel or serial, fast or slow, Testing theories of WMC
online or offline?
Testing theories of WMC
Mark Nieuwenstein

2. In this talk:
Phenomenon: Extended sparing in RSVP
2. Theories of extended sparing in RSVP
3. A qualitative test of the theories
4. A more general point
Conclusions:
WMC can be interrupted by a switch in central processing requirements, but not by a mask or another to-be-encoded item
WMC occurs in parallel for successive items in RSVP
WMC takes about 400 ms for a single letter in RSVP
Occurrence of interruption of WMC depends on the likelihood of interference during WMC.

3. Phenomenon: Extended sparing in RSVP
Nieuwenstein & Potter (Psychological Science, 2006)

4. Phenomenon: Extended sparing in RSVP
Nieuwenstein & Potter (Psychological Science, 2006)

5. Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011
2. Theories of extended sparing in RSVP: eSTST
WMC
Attentional Blink:
T1 [blank ISI] T2 Mask
Attention * T1
Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011

6. Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011
2. Theories of extended sparing in RSVP: eSTST
WMC
Extended sparing
T1 T2 T3 T4
Attention * T1
Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011

7. Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011
2. Theories of extended sparing in RSVP: eSTST
WMC
Extended sparing
T1 T2 T3 T4
Attention * T2
Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011

8. Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011
2. Theories of extended sparing in RSVP: eSTST
WMC
Extended sparing
T1 T2 T3 T4
Attention * T3
Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011

9. Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011
2. Theories of extended sparing in RSVP: eSTST
WMC
Extended sparing
T1 T2 T3 T4
Attention * T4
Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011

10. Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011
2. Theories of extended sparing in RSVP: eSTST
WMC
Attention * T4
Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011

11. Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011
2. Theories of extended sparing in RSVP: eSTST
WMC
Attention * T4
Wyble, Potter, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEP:HPP 2009, JEP:Gen 2011

12. 2. Other theories of extended sparing in RSVP
Serial Consolidation (Taatgen et al., 2009)
Key Assumptions:
Serial consolidation
Consolidation time: 250 ms per item
Requires intermediate buffer for retaining items before they can be consolidated: Buffer not specified in model.

13. 2. Other theories of extended sparing in RSVP
Batch Consolidation (Jolicoeur et al., 2002; Raffone et al., 2015)
Key Assumptions:
Consolidation begins after target sequence ends
Targets consolidated in a single batch
Requires intermediate buffer for retaining items before they can be consolidated: Attention-based activation (Raffone et al., 2015).

14. 2. Other theories of extended sparing in RSVP
Rapid Consolidation (Gegenfurtner & Sperling, 1993; Vogel et al., 2006)
Key Assumptions:
Consolidation is interrupted by a mask. Thus, ability to report masked item is taken to reflect the fact that consolidation was completed before the mask.
Masking experiments suggest that consolidation of a single letter can be completed in ms.

15. 2. Overview of theories of extended sparing in RSVP

16. 3. A qualitative test of the theories
All items lost
Graded retroactive interference
Graded retroactive interference
All items unaffected
Research Question:
Can consolidation be interrupted by some kind of post-sequence event (suffix)?

17. 3. A qualitative test of the theories
Exp 1. Effect of post-sequence mask
Exp 2. Effect of post-sequence simple RT task
Exp 3. Effect of post-sequence 2-AFC task (parity)

18. Results Experiments 1-3

19. Preliminary Conclusion: Graded Retroactive Interference

20. Conditional analysis to distinguish serial vs. parallel:
Does interference for L3 & L4 depend on recall of L1 & L2?
It should!
It should not!

21. Conditional analysis to distinguish serial vs. parallel:
Does interference for L3 & L4 depend on recall of L1 & L2?
Data Used for Analysis:
3 other experiments (Total N = 37) using 4-letter RSVP sequences,
with / without post-sequence 2-AFC (auditory or visual parity judgment)
Result:
No difference in retroactive interference for L3 and L4 depending on whether L1 and L2 were correctly recalled: BF01 = 6.8

22. Conditional analysis to distinguish serial vs. parallel:
Does interference for L3 & L4 depend on recall of L1 & L2?

23. Interpretation Interruption of WMC Task-switch effect:
Response selection 2-AFC
interrupts consolidation
Cortical Router Model
Zylberberg, Dehaene et al. 2010

24. In this talk:
Phenomenon: Extended sparing in RSVP
2. Theories of extended sparing in RSVP
A qualitative test of the theories
Conclusions:
WMC can be interrupted by a switch in central processing requirements, but not by a mask or another to-be-encoded item
WMC occurs in parallel for successive items in RSVP
WMC takes about 400 ms for a single letter in RSVP
Occurrence of interruption of WMC depends on the likelihood of interference during WMC.

25. The more general point (perhaps more important too)
Retroactive interference conflicts with typical findings of proactive interference (e.g., AB, PRP).
When does one get retroactive interference and when does one get proactive interference?

26. “Cognitive Backward Masking”
RI with Simultaneous Presentation
Nieuwenstein & Wyble
(JEPG, 2014)
“Cognitive Backward Masking”

27. RI with Simultaneous Presentation
Nieuwenstein & Wyble
(JEPG, 2014)
SOA (ms)

28. Little if any proactive interference!
SOA (ms)
Nieuwenstein & Wyble
(JEPG, 2014)

29. Effect of T2 Probability: 100 vs. 75 vs. 50% T2 Present
One would preferably contrast T2 probability within subjects but….
Block 1 = 50%, Block 2 = 100% -> Net T2 prob. block 2 = 75%
Block 1 = 100%, Block 2 = 50% -> Net T2 prob. Block 2 = 75%

30. Interpretation of Effect of T2 Probability
When T2 probability is high, the risk of interference with T1 consolidation is high.
This leads to a strategy in which T1 consolidation is protected by suppressing attention for new inputs.
As a result, T1 consolidation is shielded from interference but T2 processing is postponed: proactive interference (the PRP effect).

31. Interpretation of Effect of T2 Probability
When T2 probability is low, the risk of interference with T1 consolidation is low.
This leads to a strategy in which T1 consolidation does not suppress attention for new inputs.
As a result, T1 consolidation is not protected, thus allowing T2 to be processed unabated, at the cost of interrupting T1 consolidation: retroactive interference.

32. Thank you for your attention!
Working Memory Consolidation (WMC)
Thank you for your attention!

33. Results Experiments 1-3: RTs for simple RT and 2-AFC

34. Exp 4. Independent Effects of 2-AFC and Masking
“Cognitive Backward Masking”

35. Serial Position in RSVP
Exp 4. Independent Effects of 2-AFC and Masking
“Cognitive Backward Masking” A
Accuracy B
Interference
100 50
Blank + Parity judgment 90
Mask + Parity judgment 40 80
Blank - No parity judgment 70
Mask – No parity judgment 30 60
% Correct Recall
% Difference 50 20 40 10 30
Blank - No parity judgment
Mask - No parity judgment 20
Blank + Parity judgment 10
Mask + Parity judgment
-10 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Serial Position in RSVP

36. Conclusion Exp 4.
No interaction between effects of a mask and an 2-AFC task.
Mask erases sensory trace of last letter, but it does not affect consolidation of earlier letters.
2-AFC interrupts consolidation, also for letters that have already been masked by subsequent letters.