Binding serial order to representations in working memory: a spatial/verbal dissociation.
Verbal information is coded naturally as ordered representations in working memory (WM). However, this may not be true for spatial information. Accordingly, we used memory span tasks to test the hypothesis that serial order is more readily bound to verbal than to spatial representations. Removing serial-order requirements improved performance more for spatial locations than for digits. Furthermore, serial order was freely reproduced twice as frequently for digits as for locations. When participants reordered spatial sequences, they minimized the mean distance between items. Participants also failed to detect changes in serial order more frequently for spatial than for verbal sequences. These results provide converging evidence for a dissociation in the binding of serial order to spatial versus verbal representations. There may be separable domain-specific control processes responsible for this binding. Alternatively, there may be fundamental differences in how effectively temporal information can be bound to different types of stimulus features in WM.
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218-2686, USA. gmeindl@jhu.edu
Leon
L
Gmeindl
Megan
M
Walsh
Susan M
SM
Courtney
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D008297:Male; D008570:Memory, Short-Term; D009949:Orientation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D012691:Serial Learning; D013028:Space Perception; D055815:Young Adult
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2002 Dec;15(1):61-9
12506934
Exp Brain Res. 1998 Nov;123(1-2):210-9
9835411
Scand J Psychol. 2001 Jul;42(3):217-24
11501736
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011 Oct;73(7):2130-42
21761373
Q J Exp Psychol A. 1994 Feb;47(1):91-117
8177964
Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(2):229-37
15979109
Mem Cognit. 1994 Jan;22(1):1-13
8035679
J Exp Psychol. 1954 Jun;47(6):381-91
13174710
Mem Cognit. 1988 Jul;16(4):343-52
3062314
Mem Cognit. 1993 Sep;21(5):689-98
8412719
Mem Cognit. 2009 Mar;37(2):181-93
19223568
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 Jan;27(1):54-66
11204107
Q J Exp Psychol A. 1996 Feb;49(1):159-77
8920101
Percept Psychophys. 1991 May;49(5):473-80
2057313
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004 Jul;20(2):194-205
15183391
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2005 Jan;27(1):127-34
15814446
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2004 Dec;4(4):528-39
15849895
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1986 Jan;12(1):3-15
2949048
Mem Cognit. 2007 Jul;35(5):1093-106
17910192
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 May;31(3):412-27
15910128
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990 Mar;16(2):316-27
2137870
Brain Cogn. 1998 Dec;38(3):317-38
9841789
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Jun;24(3):780-90
9627416
Assessment. 2008 Dec;15(4):426-34
18483192
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 May;26(3):683-702
10855426
Br J Psychol. 1996 May;87 ( Pt 2):179-91
8673358
Exp Brain Res. 2000 Jul;133(1):23-32
10933207
Mem Cognit. 1993 Jul;21(4):440-8
8350735
Mem Cognit. 2010 Jan;38(1):83-91
19966241
Mem Cognit. 2007 Jan;35(1):176-90
17533891
Science. 1999 Mar 12;283(5408):1657-61
10073923
Memory. 1996 May;4(3):225-42
8735609
Neuron. 2003 Jan 23;37(2):361-7
12546829
Mem Cognit. 1990 May;18(3):251-69
2192233
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
9176952
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 Jan;59(1):100-20
16556561