Search

Understanding the physiological correlates of cognitive overload has implications for gauging the limits of human cognition, developing novel methods to define cognitive overload, and mitigating the negative outcomes associated with overload. Most previous psychophysiological studies manipulated verbal working memory load in a narrow range (an average load of 5 items). It is unclear, however, how the nervous system responds to a working memory load exceeding typical capacity limits. The objective of the current study was to characterize the central and autonomic nervous system changes associated with memory overload, by means of combined recording of electroencephalogram (EEG) and pupillometry. Eighty‐six participants were presented with a digit span task involving the serial auditory presentation of items. Each trial consisted of sequences of either 5, 9, or 13 digits, each separated by 2 s. Both theta activity and pupil size, after the initial rise, expressed a pattern of a short plateau and a decrease with reaching the state of memory overload, indicating that pupil size and theta possibly have similar neural mechanisms. Based on the described above triphasic pattern of pupil size temporal dynamics, we concluded that cognitive overload causes physiological systems to reset, and release effort. Although memory capacity limits were exceeded and effort was released (as indicated by pupil dilation), alpha continued to decrease with increasing memory load. These results suggest that associating alpha with the focus of attention and distractor suppression is not warranted. The objective of the current study was to characterize the central and autonomic nervous system changes associated with memory overload using electroencephalogram and pupillometry. When the number of memory items exceeded working memory capacity, the pupil constricted and theta power decreased, but only after a plateau. Thus, overtaxing individual cognitive resources leads to a release of effort accompanied by a drop in physiological indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Working memory and attention are interrelated constructs that are sometimes even considered indistinguishable. Since attention is not a uniform construct, it is possible that different types of attention affect working memory capacity differently. To clarify this issue, we investigated the relationship between working memory capacity and various components of attention. The sample consisted of 136 healthy adult participants aged 18 to 37 years (M = 20.58, SD = 2.74). Participants performed tasks typically used to assess working memory (operation span, change detection, simple digit span, and adaptive digit span tasks), selective attention (visual search task), and attention control (Stroop and antisaccade tasks). We tested several models with working memory and attention, either as a unitary factor or being divided into selective attention and attention control factors. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model with three latent variables—working memory capacity, attention control, and selective attention—fit the data best. Results showed that working memory and attention are distinct but correlated constructs: working memory capacity was only related to attention control, whereas attention control was related to both constructs. We propose that differences in working memory capacity are determined only by the ability to maintain attention on the task, while differences in the ability to filter out non-salient distractors are not related to working memory capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]