Search

Several models of working memory (WM), the cognitive system devoted to the temporary maintenance of a small amount of information in view of its treatment, assume that these two functions of storage and processing share a common and limited resource. However, the predictions issued from these models concerning this resource-sharing remain usually qualitative, and at which precise extent these functions are affected by their concurrent implementation remains undecided. The aim of the present study was to quantify this resource sharing by expressing storage and processing performance during a complex span task in terms of the proportion of the highest level of performance each participant was able to reach (i.e., their span) in each component when performed in isolation. Two experiments demonstrated that, despite substantial dual-task decrements, participants managed to preserve half or more of their best performance in both components, testifying for a remarkable robustness of the human cognitive system. The implications of these results for the main WM models are discussed., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The present study was conducted to decipher whether a spatial correspondence effect can emerge in Go/No-Go tasks (cSE, in reference to Donders' type c task) performed in isolation (participant alone in the cubicle). To this aim, a single participant was centrally positioned in front of a device and was required to respond by a hand key-press to the color of the stimulus. Half the participants were seated in front of a table equipped with only one response key and the other half in front of a table equipped with two response keys (one active and the other one useless). Using a substantial number of subjects (48) and trials (960), the present study revealed a numerically small but statistically reliable cSE. This result contrasts with referential coding predictions and suggests that the representation of a concurrently active response is not a prerequisite for the cSE to emerge. Moreover, the presence of a second response button in the participant's peripersonal space exerted no measurable influence on the cSE. The lack of statistical power of numerous previous studies may explain why the cSE has often been considered to be nil.

Performing more poorly given one's skill level ("choking") is likely in situations that offer an incentive if a certain outcome is achieved (outcome pressure) or when one is being watched by others-especially when one's performance is being evaluated (monitoring pressure). According to the choking literature, outcome pressure is associated with reduced executive control of attention, whereas monitoring pressure is associated with increased, yet counterproductive, attention to skill processes. Here, we show the first evidence that monitoring pressure-being watched by the experimenter-may lead individuals with higher working memory to choke on a classic measure of executive control-just the task effect thought to result from outcome pressure. Not only does this finding help refine our understanding of the processes underlying choking under monitoring pressure, but it also leads to a new look at classic audience effects, with an important implication for experimental psychology.