Top

Gepubliceerd in:

19-06-2019 | Original Article

Dual-memory retrieval efficiency after practice: effects of strategy manipulations

Auteurs: Franziska Heidemann, Timothy C. Rickard, Torsten Schubert, Tilo Strobach

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 8/2020

Abstract

The study investigated practice effects, instruction manipulations, and the associated cognitive architecture of dual-memory retrieval from a single cue. In two experiments, we tested predictions about the presence of learned parallelism in dual-memory retrieval within the framework of the set-cue bottleneck model. Both experiments included three experimental laboratory sessions and involved computerized assessments of dual-memory retrieval performance with strategy instruction manipulations. In Experiment 1, subjects were assigned to three distinct dual-task practice instruction groups: (1) a neutral instruction group without a specific direction on how to solve the task (i.e., neutral instruction), (2) an instruction to synchronize the responses (i.e., synchronize instruction), and (3) an instruction to use a sequential response style (i.e., immediate instruction). Results indicate that strategy instructions are able to effectively influence dual retrieval during practice. Mainly, the instruction to synchronize responses led to the presence of learned retrieval parallelism. Experiment 2 provided an assessment of the cognitive processing architecture of dual-memory retrieval. The results provide support for the presence of a structural bottleneck that cannot be eliminated by extensive practice and instruction manipulations. Further results are discussed with respect to the set-cue bottleneck model.

vorige artikel Accent-induced stabilization of spontaneous auditory–motor synchronization

volgende artikel Manipulating the depth of processing reveals the relevance of second eye fixations for recollection but not familiarity

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

In this line of research, we distinguish between long (IRI > 300 ms) and short (IRI < 300 ms) IRIs to assess potential differences in response styles (Nino and Rickard, 2003).

Bonferroni correction was applied to ensure alpha-correction for the three relevant analyses (alpha = .017).

Brickenkamp, R., & Zillmer, E. (1998). The d2 test of attention. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Brüning, J., & Manzey, D. (2018). Flexibility of individual multitasking strategies in task-switching with preview: are preferences for serial versus overlapping task processing dependent on between-task conflict? Psychological Research, 82(1), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0924-0.PubMedCrossRef

Burgess, P. W., Veitch, E., de Lacy Costello, A., & Shallice, T. (2000). The cognitive and neuroanatomical correlates of multitasking. Neuropsychologia, 38(6), 848–863.PubMedCrossRef

Chen, Q., & Yan, Z. (2016). Does multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 34–42.CrossRef

Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1989). NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Dembo, M. H., & Seli, H. P. (2004). Students’ resistance to change in learning strategies courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(3), 2–11.

Fischer, R., & Plessow, F. (2015). Efficient multitasking: parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01366.CrossRef

Han, S. W., & Marois, R. (2013). The source of dual-task limitations: Serial or parallel processing of multiple response selections? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(7), 1395–1405. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0513-2.CrossRef

Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(3), 527–545.PubMed

Hoijtink, H., Klugkist, I., & Boelen, P. (2008). Bayesian evaluation of informative hypotheses. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRef

Ishizaka, K., Marshall, S. P., & Conte, J. M. (2001). Individual differences in attentional strategies in multitasking situations. Human Performance, 14(4), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043hup1404_4.CrossRef

Jansen, R. J., van Egmond, R., & de Ridder, H. (2016). Task prioritization in dual-tasking: Instructions versus preferences. PLoS ONE, 11(7), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158511.CrossRef

JASP Team (2018). JASP (Version 0.8.6) [Computer software].

Jordan, J. D., Landau, E. M., & Iyengar, R. (2000). Signaling networks: the origins of cellular multitasking. Cell, 103(2), 193–200.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Kramer, A. F., Larish, J. F., & Strayer, D. L. (1995). Training for attentional control in dual task settings: a comparison of young and old adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1(1), 50–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.1.1.50.CrossRef

Kruschke, J. K. (2013). Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 573–603. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029146.CrossRef

Laine, M., Fellman, D., Waris, O., & Nyman, T. J. (2018). The early effects of external and internal strategies on working memory updating training. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 4045–4056. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22396-5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Lehle, C., & Hübner, R. (2009). Strategic capacity sharing between two tasks: Evidence from tasks with the same and with different task sets. Psychological Research, 73(5), 707–726.PubMedCrossRef

Lehle, C., Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Serial or parallel processing in dual tasks: What is more effortful? Psychophysiology, 46(3), 502–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00806.x.PubMedCrossRef

Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2008). Task prioritisation in multitasking during driving: Opportunity to abort a concurrent task does not insulate braking responses from dual-task slowing. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(4), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1378.CrossRef

Maquestiaux, F., Laguë-Beauvais, M., Bherer, L., & Ruthruff, E. (2008). Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Evidence for task automatization and greedy resource recruitment. Memory & Cognition, 36(7), 1262–1282. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.7.1262.CrossRef

McNamara, D. S., & Scott, J. L. (2001). Working memory capacity and strategy use. Memory & Cognition, 29(1), 10–17.CrossRef

Meneghetti, C., Cardillo, R., Mammarella, I. C., Caviola, S., & Borella, E. (2017). The role of practice and strategy in mental rotation training: transfer and maintenance effects. Psychological Research, 81(2), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0749-2.PubMedCrossRef

Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part I. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104(1), 3–65.PubMedCrossRef

Miller, J., & Durst, M. (2014). “Just do it when you get a chance”: the effects of a background task on primary task performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(8), 2560–2574.CrossRef

Nino, R. S., & Rickard, T. C. (2003). Practice effects on two memory retrievals from a single cue. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 373–388.PubMedCrossRef

Oberauer, K., & Bialkova, S. (2011). Serial and parallel processes in working memory after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 606–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020986.PubMedCrossRef

Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2004). Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.689.PubMedCrossRef

Orscheschek, F., Strobach, T., Schubert, T., & Rickard, T. (2018). Two retrievals from a single cue: A bottleneck persists across episodic and semantic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5), 1005–1028. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818776818.CrossRef

Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.CrossRef

Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove: Psychology Press.

Reissland, J., & Manzey, D. (2016). Serial or overlapping processing in multitasking as individual preference: Effects of stimulus preview on task switching and concurrent dual-task performance. Acta Psychologica, 168, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.04.010.PubMedCrossRef

Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H. E., & Hazeltine, E. (2003). Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement? Perception & Psychophysics, 65(5), 801–816.CrossRef

Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H. E., & Klaassen, A. (2001). Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or strategic postponement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(1), 73–80.CrossRef

Ruthruff, E., Van Selst, M., Johnston, J. C., & Remington, R. (2006). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening? Psychological Research, 70(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-004-0192-7.CrossRef

Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Strayer, D. L., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J. M. (2013). Who multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e54402. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054402.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Schell, K. L., & Conte, J. M. (2008). Associations among polychronicity, goal orientation, and error orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 288–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.08.009.CrossRef

Schmidt, K., & Metzler, P. (1992). Wortschatztest (WST)(“German vocabulary test for crystalline intelligence estimation”). Weinheim: Beltz Test GmbH.

Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological science, 12(2), 101–108.CrossRef

Sternberg, R. J., Zhang, L.-F., & Rayner, S. (2011). Handbook of intellectual styles: Preferences in cognition, learning, and thinking. Berlin: Springer Publishing Company.

Strobach, T., Frensch, P., Mueller, H. J., & Schubert, T. (2012a). Testing the limits of optimizing dual-task performance in younger and older adults. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00039.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Strobach, T., Frensch, P., Müller, H., & Schubert, T. (2012b). Age-and practice-related influences on dual-task costs and compensation mechanisms under optimal conditions of dual-task performance. Aging Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 19(1–2), 222–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2011.630973.CrossRef

Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2017). Mechanisms of practice-related reductions of dual-task interference with simple tasks: data and theory. Advances in cognitive psychology, 13(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0204-7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Strobach, T., Schubert, T., Pashler, H., & Rickard, T. (2014). The specificity of learned parallelism in dual-memory retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 42(4), 552–569. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0382-x.CrossRef

Süß, H.-M., Oberauer, K., Wittmann, W. W., Wilhelm, O., & Schulze, R. (2002). Working-memory capacity explains reasoning ability—and a little bit more. Intelligence, 30(3), 261–288.CrossRef

Swanson, H. L., Orosco, M. J., & Lussier, C. M. (2014). The effects of mathematics strategy instruction for children with serious problem-solving difficulties. Exceptional Children, 80(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291408000202.CrossRef

Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2000). Is the PRP effect due to a strategic or structural bottleneck. New Orleans: In Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society.CrossRef

Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale-fourth edition (WAIS–IV): San Antonio. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Titel: Dual-memory retrieval efficiency after practice: effects of strategy manipulations
Auteurs: Franziska Heidemann
Timothy C. Rickard
Torsten Schubert
Tilo Strobach
Publicatiedatum: 19-06-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01217-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2020

The Four-Factor Imagination Scale (FFIS): a measure for assessing frequency, complexity, emotional valence, and directedness of imagination

Original Article

Manipulating the depth of processing reveals the relevance of second eye fixations for recollection but not familiarity

Original Article

Active visuomotor interactions with virtual objects on touchscreens adhere to Weber’s law

Original Article

Online management of text production from pictures: a comparison between fifth graders and undergraduate students

Original Article

Do left-handers outperform right-handers in paper-and-pencil tests of attention?

Original Article

Cueing distraction: electrophysiological evidence for anticipatory active suppression of distractor location

Original Article