Immunity to proactive interference is not a property of the focus of attention in working memory.
The Focus of Attention (FOA) is the latest incarnation of a limited capacity store in which a small number of items, in this case four, are deemed to be readily accessible and do not need to be retrieved. Thus a corollary of these ideas is that those items in the FOA are always immune to proactive interference. While there is empirical support for instances of immunity to PI in short-term retention tasks that involve memory for four-item lists, there are also many instances in which PI is observed with four-item lists as well as instances where PI and immunity to PI can be shown in the same experiment. In contrast to the FOA assumptions, an alternative cue-based account predicts both the presence of PI and immunity to PI as a function of the relation between the cues available and the particular test. Three experiments contrasted the FOA assumptions and the cue-based approach in a short-term cued recall task in which PI is manipulated by testing whether the presentation of previous, similar items would interfere with immediate recall of three list items. The results indicated that even with very short lists, both PI and immunity to PI could be observed. The PI effects observed in our experiment are at odds with the FOA approach and are more readily explained using the cueing account.
University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, QLD, Australia.
Alicia
A
Ralph
Jade N
JN
Walters
Alison
A
Stevens
Kirra J
KJ
Fitzgerald
Gerald
G
Tehan
Aimee M
AM
Surprenant
Ian
I
Neath
Josée
J
Turcotte
D001245:Association Learning; D001288:Attention; D003463:Cues; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008570:Memory, Short-Term; D010700:Phonetics; D011334:Proactive Inhibition; D011578:Psycholinguistics; D012153:Retention, Psychology; D012660:Semantics; D012691:Serial Learning
Psychol Bull. 2007 Nov;133(6):1038-66
17967093
Memory. 2005 Apr-May;13(3-4):293-9
15952261
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 May;28(3):411-21
12018494
Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Feb;24(1):87-114; discussion 114-85
11515286
Cogn Psychol. 1998 Jul;36(2):73-137
9721198
J Exp Psychol. 1968 Jun;77(2):239-48
5655115
Mem Cognit. 1988 Sep;16(5):480-7
3173097
Psychol Rev. 1965 Mar;72:89-104
14282677
J Cogn Neurosci. 2000 Jan;12(1):188-96
10769315
Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):81-97
13310704
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 May;27(3):817-35
11394682
Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Mar;9(1):59-79
12026954
Mem Cognit. 1989 Nov;17(6):712-22
2811668
Mem Cognit. 1995 Mar;23(2):181-91
7731363
Mem Cognit. 1993 Mar;21(2):168-75
8469125
Can J Exp Psychol. 2010 Sep;64(3):208-14
20873917
Mem Cognit. 1998 May;26(3):477-89
9610119
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2005 Jan;58(1):134-54
15881295
Mem Cognit. 1990 May;18(3):251-69
2192233
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005 Aug;134(3):368-87
16131269
Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:193-224
17854286