> Title:
> Analogous mechanisms of selection and updating in declarative and procedural working memory: Experiments and a computational model
>
> Authors:
> Oberauer, K; Souza, AS; Druey, MD; Gade, M
>
> Source:
> *COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY*, 66 (2):157-211; MAR 2013
>
> Abstract:
> The article investigates the mechanisms of selecting and updating
> representations in declarative and procedural working memory (WM).
> Declarative WM holds the objects of thought available, whereas
> procedural WM holds representations of what to do with these objects.
> Both systems consist of three embedded components: activated long-term
> memory, a central capacity-limited component for building structures
> through temporary bindings, and a single-element focus of attention.
> Five experiments test the hypothesis of analogous mechanisms in
> declarative and procedural WM, investigating repetition effects across
> trials for individual representations (objects and responses) and for
> sets (memory sets and task sets), as well as set-congruency effects.
> Evidence for analogous processes was obtained from three phenomena: (1)
> Costs of task switching and of list switching are reduced with longer
> preparation interval. (2) The effects of task congruency and of list
> congruency are undiminished with longer preparation interval. (3)
> Response repetition interacts with task repetition in procedural WM;
> here we show an analogous interaction of list repetition with item
> repetition in declarative WM. All three patterns were reproduced by a
> connectionist model implementing the assumed selection and updating
> mechanisms. The model consists of two modules, an item-selection module
> selecting individual items from a memory set, or responses from a task
> set, and a set-selection module for selecting memory sets or task sets.
> The model codes the matrix of binding weights in the item-selection
> module as a pattern of activation in the set-selection module, thereby
> providing a mechanism for building chunks in LTM, and for unpacking them
> as structures into working memory. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights
> reserved.
>
> ========================================================================
>
>
> *Pages: 212-231 (Article)
> *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=CCC&DestLinkType=FullRecord;KeyUT=CCC:000316372900002
> *Order Full Text [ ]
>
> Title:
> Loss-aversion or loss-attention: The impact of losses on cognitive performance
>
> Authors:
> Yechiam, E; Hochman, G
>
> Source:
> *COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY*, 66 (2):212-231; MAR 2013
>
> Abstract:
> Losses were found to improve cognitive performance, and this has been
> commonly explained by increased weighting of losses compared to gains
> (i.e., loss aversion). We examine whether effects of losses on
> performance could be modulated by two alternative processes: an
> attentional effect leading to increased sensitivity to task incentives;
> and a contrast-related effect. Empirical data from five studies show
> that losses improve performance even when the enhanced performance runs
> counter to the predictions of loss aversion. In Study 1-3 we show that
> in various settings, when an advantageous option produces large gains
> and small losses, participants select this alternative at a higher rate
> than when it does not produce losses. Consistent with the joint
> influence of attention and contrast-related processes, this effect is
> smaller when a disadvantageous alternative produces the losses. In
> Studies 4 and 5 we find a positive effect on performance even with no
> contrast effects (when a similar loss is added to all alternatives).
> These findings indicate that both attention and contrast-based processes
> are implicated in the effect of losses on performance, and that a
> positive effect of losses on performance is not tantamount to loss
> aversion. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
>
> ========================================================================
>
>
> *Pages: 232-258 (Article)
> *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=CCC&DestLinkType=FullRecord;KeyUT=CCC:000316372900003
> *Order Full Text [ ]
>
> Title:
> There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing
>
> Authors:
> Paap, KR; Greenberg, ZI
>
> Source:
> *COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY*, 66 (2):232-258; MAR 2013
>
> Abstract:
> Three studies compared bilinguals to monolinguals on 15 indicators of
> executive processing (EP). Most of the indicators compare a neutral or
> congruent baseline to a condition that should require EP. For each of
> the measures there was no main effect of group and a highly significant
> main effect of condition. The critical marker for a bilingual advantage,
> the Group x Condition interaction, was significant for only one
> indicator, but in a pattern indicative of a bilingual disadvantage.
> Tasks include antisaccade (Study 1), Simon (Studies 1-3), flanker (Study
> 3), and color-shape switching (Studies 1-3). The two groups performed
> identically on the Raven's Advanced Matrices test (Study 3). Analyses on
> the combined data selecting subsets that are precisely matched on
> parent's educational level or that include only highly fluent bilinguals
> reveal exactly the same pattern of results. A problem reconfirmed by the
> present study is that effects assumed to be indicators of a specific
> executive process in one task (e.g., inhibitory control in the flanker
> task) frequently do not predict individual differences in that same
> indicator on a related task (e.g., inhibitory control in the Simon
> task). The absence of consistent cross-task correlations undermines the
> interpretation that these are valid indicators of domain-general
> abilities. In a final discussion the underlying rationale for
> hypothesizing bilingual advantages in executive processing based on the
> special linguistic demands placed on bilinguals is interrogated. (C)
> 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment