Search

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 45(9) of Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (see record 2019-48991-001). In the article, the copyright attribution was incorrectly listed and should have published under the Creative Commons CC-BY license. The correct copyright is "© 2018 The Author(s)." All versions of this article have been corrected.] Theories of working memory often disagree on the relationships between processing and storage, particularly on how heavily they rely on an attention-based limited resource. Some posit separation and specialization of resources resulting in minimal interference to memory when completing an ongoing processing task, while others argue for a greater overlap in the resources involved in concurrent tasks. Here, we present four experiments that investigated the presence or absence of dual-task costs for memory and processing. The experiments were carried in an adversarial collaboration in which researchers from three opposing theories collaboratively designed a set of experiments and provided differential predictions in line with each of their models. Participants performed delayed recall of aurally and visually presented letters and an arithmetic verification task either as single tasks or with the arithmetic verification task between presentation and recall of letter sequences. Single- and dual-task conditions were completed with and without concurrent articulatory suppression. A consistent pattern of dual-task and suppression costs was observed for memory, with smaller or null effects on processing. The observed data did not fit perfectly with any one framework, with each model having partial success in predicting data patterns. Implications for each of the models are discussed, with an aim for future research to investigate whether some combination of the models and their assumptions can provide a more comprehensive interpretation of the pattern of effects observed here and in relevant previous studies associated with each theoretical framework. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Evidence accumulated for more than a century on audience effects shows that being watched by others typically impairs performance on difficult tasks. However, recent research under the label of « choking under pressure » suggests that this performance impairment is, ironically, specific to the individuals who are the most qualified to succeed-those with a high working memory capacity (WMC). Here, we predicted and found that being watched by evaluative others such as the experimenter undermines proactive control on which the high-WMC individuals rely the more. These results refine our understanding of both audience and choking effects, and lead to innovative, practical recommendations for psychological science., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.

From cockroaches to human beings, the presence of other members of the same species typically facilitates dominant (habitual/well-learned) responses regardless of their contextual relevance. This social facilitation requires special attention in animal species such as primates, given their evolved cognitive control mechanisms. Here we tested baboons who freely engaged in (computer-based) conflict response tasks requiring cognitive control for successful performance, and discovered that social presence does not only enhance dominant responses but also consumes cognitive control resources. Under social presence, the baboons experienced greater cognitive conflicts, were less able to inhibit a learned action in favor of a new one, and were also less able to take advantage of previous experience with response conflict, compared with isolation. These findings explain why inappropriate behaviors are not easily suppressed in primates acting in social contexts, and indicate a greater demand for cognitive control in social groups. This extra demand might represent a major evolutionary drive of human intelligence., (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.)