Working-Memory Consolidation Mark Nieuwenstein

Insights from the attentional blink In the next 10 minutes …. (1) Definition WMC (2) Mechanisms & Representations (3) Relationship with “attention” (4) Time course / Methodology / Evidence (5) Limitations (6) Reliance on LTM Insights from the attentional blink

First …. A crash course in attentional blink-o-logy lots of studies … Lots of theories and models … Resource depletion Inhibition theory Loss of control Two-stage theory STST CODAM Boost and Bounce eSTST nROUSE Locus Coeruleus theory and more .. Global workspace theory ViSA

Archetypal Paradigm Dual-target rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP)

Lag 5 – 500 ms SOA

Lag 2 – 200 ms SOA

Lag 1 – 100 ms SOA

% Correct Second Target The Attentional Blink 100 % Correct Second Target 100 SOA (ms) 800

No effect of AB on “early” components The Attentional Blink P3 <–> WM Suppressed during AB No effect of AB on “early” components Luck et al. (Nature 1996); Vogel et al. (JEPHPP, 1998) 100 SOA (ms) 800

Theories proven to be wrong (I think) Nieuwenstein et al., 2009a; 2009b Lots of theories and models … Inhibition theory CODAM Locus Coeruleus theory Resource depletion STST nROUSE ViSA Two-stage theory eSTST Global workspace theory Loss of control Boost and Bounce and more …

Theories proven to be wrong (I think) Precuing T2 prevents AB (Nieuwenstein et al., 2005;2006), and errors in T2 report tend to be reports of T2+1 (Chun, 1997; Vul, Nieuwenstein, & Kanwisher, 2008) No AB in whole report task (Nieuwenstein & Potter, 2006) Order errors: T1 <-> T2 at lag 1 (lots of studies) Lots of theories and models … Resource depletion Inhibition theory Loss of control Two-stage theory STST CODAM Boost and Bounce eSTST nROUSE Locus Coeruleus theory and more … Global workspace theory ViSA Lots of theories and models … Inhibition theory CODAM Locus Coeruleus theory Resource depletion STST nROUSE ViSA Two-stage theory eSTST Global workspace theory Loss of control Boost and Bounce Boost and

The episodic Simultaneous type - Serial token model eSTST Brad Wyble (Wyble, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, JEPHPP 2009; JEPG 2011) Brad Wyble To understand, also read: Bowman & Wyble, 2007 Chun & Potter, 1995 Kanwisher, 1987 Howard Bowman + me

The Model, and its answers to questions about WMC

The Model, and its answers to questions about WMC

The Model, and its answers to questions about WMC

Definition WMC WMC is … the process that creates a durable, consciously accessible representation of an otherwise fleeting trace of sensory input

Time since Stimulus Onset Definition WMC Consciously accessible representation in WM WMC Attention … Sensory Encoding Time since Stimulus Onset

Definition WMC – Link to Conscious Reportability Stanislav Dehaene et al. TiCS 2006 Types –temporal cortex Tokens – prefrontal cortex

Mechanisms and Representations WMC involves … A binding process that enables the establishment of a durable connection between a type and a token (Bowman & Wyble, 2007; Wyble, Bowman, & Nieuwenstein, 2009) Type: Representation of (the features of) a stimulus Token: Unit capable of self-sustained activation, encodes serial order.

Mechanisms and Representations Once consolidation starts, the activation of the type is sustained by the binding process. This explains why WMC is not aborted / interrupted by backward masking.

Relationship with “attention” WMC inhibits the blaster, preventing new targets from being attended: AB Targets can trigger attentional enhancement

Limitations … Multiple types can be bound to tokens in parallel Inhibition between types produces interference Order information may be lost

Relationship with LTM No systematic investigations of how familiarity affects the AB (as far as I know…) I would expect that familiarity speeds up consolidation (and I probably don’t have time to explain why ….)

Thanks for your attention! Working Memory Consolidation (WMC) Thanks for your attention!