↓ Skip to main content

Time-based forgetting in visual working memory reflects temporal distinctiveness, not decay

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
Title
Time-based forgetting in visual working memory reflects temporal distinctiveness, not decay
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, May 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13423-014-0652-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandra S. Souza, Klaus Oberauer

Abstract

Is forgetting from working memory (WM) better explained by decay or interference? The answer to this question is the topic of an ongoing debate. Recently, a number of studies showed that performance in tests of visual WM declines with an increasing unfilled retention interval. This finding was interpreted as revealing decay. Alternatively, it can be explained by interference theories as an effect of temporal distinctiveness. According to decay theories, forgetting depends on the absolute time elapsed since the event to be retrieved. In contrast, temporal distinctiveness theories predict that memory depends on relative time, that is, the time since the to-be-retrieved event relative to the time since other, potentially interfering events. In the present study, we contrasted the effects of absolute time and relative time on forgetting from visual WM, using a continuous color recall task. To this end, we varied the retention interval and the inter-trial interval. The error in reporting the target color was a function of the ratio of the retention interval to the inter-trial interval, as predicted by temporal distinctiveness theories. Mixture modeling revealed that lower temporal distinctiveness produced a lower probability of reporting the target, but no changes in its precision in memory. These data challenge the role of decay in accounting for performance in tests of visual WM, and show that the relative spacing of events in time determines the degree of interference.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 116 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 21%
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Bachelor 19 16%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 16 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 71 59%
Neuroscience 15 13%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 20 17%