Search

Working memory (WM) has been a major focus of cognitive science and neuroscience for the past 50 years. While most WM research has centered on the mechanisms of objects, there has been a lack of investigation into the cognitive and neural mechanisms of events, which are the building blocks of our experience. Employing confirmatory factor analysis and resting-state and task fMRI, our study demonstrated for the first time that events have an independent storage space within WM, known as the event cache, with distinct neural correlates compared to object storage in WM. The cerebellar network was found to be the most essential network for event cache, with the left cerebellum Crus I being particularly involved in encoding and maintaining events. Our findings shed critical light on the neuropsychological mechanism of WM by revealing event cache as an independent sub-component of WM and encourage the reconsideration of theoretical models for WM.

Visual working memory (WM) plays a pivotal role in integrating fragments into meaningful units, but no study has addressed how visual WM integration takes place in children. The current study examined whether WM integration emerges once preschoolers master Gestalt cue and can retain two representations in WM (automatic integration hypothesis), or still needs time to mature (maturation-of-integration hypothesis). Four experiments (N = 168, 81 females, 4- to 6-year-olds, Chinese, in Hangzhou, China, from 2016.10 to 2021.11) were conducted. Although 4-year-olds can retain two objects in WM and benefit from Gestalt cues in simultaneous display (Cohen's ds gt;1.00), they failed when memory arrays were presented sequentially. Meanwhile, 5- and 6-year-olds consistently demonstrated WM integration ability (all Cohen's ds gt;0.69), supporting the maturation-of-integration hypothesis.

Working memory (WM) has a limited capacity; however, this limitation can be mitigated by selecting individual items from the set currently held in WM for prioritization. The selection mechanism underlying this prioritization ability is referred to as the focus of attention (FOA) in WM. Although impressive progress has been achieved in recent years, a fundamental question remains unclear: Do perception and WM share one FOA? In the current study, we investigated the hypothesis that only a perceptual task tapping object-based attention can divert the FOA in WM. We adopted a retro-cue WM paradigm and inserted a perceptual task after the offset of the cue. Critically, we manipulated the type of attention (object-based attention in Experiments 1-3, feature-based attention in Experiment 4, and spatial attention in Experiment 5) consumed by the perceptual task. We found that participants were able to prioritize a retro-cued representation in WM, and the retro-cue benefit on memory accuracy was intact regardless of the perceptual task. Critically, the retro-cue benefit on the response time of WM task was significantly reduced only after an object-based attention perceptual task (Experiments 1, 2, 3a, and 3b), while remaining constant after a feature-based attention (Experiment 4) or spatial attention (Experiment 5) perceptual task. These results suggest that WM and perception share an object-based FOA, and an object-based attention perceptual task can divert the FOA in WM. Meanwhile, the current study further confirms that sustained attention is not necessary for selective maintenance in WM. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Working memory (WM) is essential for cognition, but the underlying neural mechanisms remain elusive. From a hierarchical processing perspective, this paper proposed and tested a hypothesis that a domain-general network at the top of the WM hierarchy can interact with distinct domain-preferential intermediate circuits to support WM. Employing a novel N-back task, we first identified the posterior superior temporal gyrus (pSTG), middle temporal area (MT), and postcentral gyrus (PoCG) as intermediate regions for biological motion and shape motion processing, respectively. Using further psychophysiological interaction analyses, we delineated a frontal–parietal network (FPN) as the domain-general network. These results were further verified and extended by a delayed match to sample (DMS) task. Although the WM load-dependent and stimulus-free activations during the DMS delay phase confirm the role of FPN as a domain-general network to maintain information, the stimulus-dependent activations within this network during the DMS encoding phase suggest its involvement in the final stage of the hierarchical processing chains. In contrast, the load-dependent activations of intermediate regions in the N-back task highlight their further roles beyond perception in WM tasks. These results provide empirical evidence for a hierarchical processing model of WM and may have significant implications for WM training.