What Limits Working Memory Capacity? Evidence for Modality-Specific Sources to the Simultaneous Storage of Visual and Auditory Arrays

Daryl Fougnie, René Marois

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    There is considerable debate on whether working memory (WM) storage is mediated by distinct subsystems for auditory and visual stimuli (Baddeley, 1986) or whether it is constrained by a single, central capacity-limited system (Cowan, 2006). Recent studies have addressed this issue by measuring the dual-task cost during the concurrent storage of auditory and visual arrays (e.g., Cocchini, Logie, Della Sala, MacPherson, & Baddeley, 2002; Fougnie & Marois, 2006; Saults & Cowan, 2007). However, studies have yielded widely different dual-task costs, which have been taken to support both modality-specific and central capacity-limit accounts of WM storage. Here, we demonstrate that the controversies regarding such costs mostly stem from how these costs are measured. Measures that compare combined dual-task capacity with the higher single-task capacity support a single, central WM store when there is a large disparity between the single-task capacities (Experiment 1) but not when the single-task capacities are well equated (Experiment 2). In contrast, measures of the dual-task cost that normalize for differences in single-task capacity reveal evidence for modality-specific stores, regardless of single-task performance. Moreover, these normalized measures indicate that dual-task cost is much smaller if the tasks do not involve maintaining bound feature representations in WM (Experiment 3). Taken together, these experiments not only resolve a discrepancy in the field and clarify how to assess the dual-task cost but also indicate that WM capacity can be constrained both by modality-specific and modality-independent sources of information processing.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)1329-1341
    Number of pages13
    JournalJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition
    Volume37
    Issue number6
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Nov 1 2011

    Fingerprint

    Short-Term Memory
    Costs and Cost Analysis
    costs
    evidence
    experiment
    Task Performance and Analysis
    Modality
    Costs
    Working Memory Capacity
    Hearing
    Automatic Data Processing
    subsystem
    Dual Task
    information processing
    source of information
    stimulus
    Experiment
    Working Memory
    performance

    Keywords

    • Capacity limits
    • Dual task
    • Working memory

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Language and Linguistics
    • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
    • Linguistics and Language

    Cite this

    What Limits Working Memory Capacity? Evidence for Modality-Specific Sources to the Simultaneous Storage of Visual and Auditory Arrays. / Fougnie, Daryl; Marois, René.

    In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, Vol. 37, No. 6, 01.11.2011, p. 1329-1341.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{530385fc2c724687b34a5d275793c919,
    title = "What Limits Working Memory Capacity? Evidence for Modality-Specific Sources to the Simultaneous Storage of Visual and Auditory Arrays",
    abstract = "There is considerable debate on whether working memory (WM) storage is mediated by distinct subsystems for auditory and visual stimuli (Baddeley, 1986) or whether it is constrained by a single, central capacity-limited system (Cowan, 2006). Recent studies have addressed this issue by measuring the dual-task cost during the concurrent storage of auditory and visual arrays (e.g., Cocchini, Logie, Della Sala, MacPherson, & Baddeley, 2002; Fougnie & Marois, 2006; Saults & Cowan, 2007). However, studies have yielded widely different dual-task costs, which have been taken to support both modality-specific and central capacity-limit accounts of WM storage. Here, we demonstrate that the controversies regarding such costs mostly stem from how these costs are measured. Measures that compare combined dual-task capacity with the higher single-task capacity support a single, central WM store when there is a large disparity between the single-task capacities (Experiment 1) but not when the single-task capacities are well equated (Experiment 2). In contrast, measures of the dual-task cost that normalize for differences in single-task capacity reveal evidence for modality-specific stores, regardless of single-task performance. Moreover, these normalized measures indicate that dual-task cost is much smaller if the tasks do not involve maintaining bound feature representations in WM (Experiment 3). Taken together, these experiments not only resolve a discrepancy in the field and clarify how to assess the dual-task cost but also indicate that WM capacity can be constrained both by modality-specific and modality-independent sources of information processing.",
    keywords = "Capacity limits, Dual task, Working memory",
    author = "Daryl Fougnie and Ren{\'e} Marois",
    year = "2011",
    month = "11",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1037/a0024834",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "37",
    pages = "1329--1341",
    journal = "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition",
    issn = "0278-7393",
    publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
    number = "6",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - What Limits Working Memory Capacity? Evidence for Modality-Specific Sources to the Simultaneous Storage of Visual and Auditory Arrays

    AU - Fougnie, Daryl

    AU - Marois, René

    PY - 2011/11/1

    Y1 - 2011/11/1

    N2 - There is considerable debate on whether working memory (WM) storage is mediated by distinct subsystems for auditory and visual stimuli (Baddeley, 1986) or whether it is constrained by a single, central capacity-limited system (Cowan, 2006). Recent studies have addressed this issue by measuring the dual-task cost during the concurrent storage of auditory and visual arrays (e.g., Cocchini, Logie, Della Sala, MacPherson, & Baddeley, 2002; Fougnie & Marois, 2006; Saults & Cowan, 2007). However, studies have yielded widely different dual-task costs, which have been taken to support both modality-specific and central capacity-limit accounts of WM storage. Here, we demonstrate that the controversies regarding such costs mostly stem from how these costs are measured. Measures that compare combined dual-task capacity with the higher single-task capacity support a single, central WM store when there is a large disparity between the single-task capacities (Experiment 1) but not when the single-task capacities are well equated (Experiment 2). In contrast, measures of the dual-task cost that normalize for differences in single-task capacity reveal evidence for modality-specific stores, regardless of single-task performance. Moreover, these normalized measures indicate that dual-task cost is much smaller if the tasks do not involve maintaining bound feature representations in WM (Experiment 3). Taken together, these experiments not only resolve a discrepancy in the field and clarify how to assess the dual-task cost but also indicate that WM capacity can be constrained both by modality-specific and modality-independent sources of information processing.

    AB - There is considerable debate on whether working memory (WM) storage is mediated by distinct subsystems for auditory and visual stimuli (Baddeley, 1986) or whether it is constrained by a single, central capacity-limited system (Cowan, 2006). Recent studies have addressed this issue by measuring the dual-task cost during the concurrent storage of auditory and visual arrays (e.g., Cocchini, Logie, Della Sala, MacPherson, & Baddeley, 2002; Fougnie & Marois, 2006; Saults & Cowan, 2007). However, studies have yielded widely different dual-task costs, which have been taken to support both modality-specific and central capacity-limit accounts of WM storage. Here, we demonstrate that the controversies regarding such costs mostly stem from how these costs are measured. Measures that compare combined dual-task capacity with the higher single-task capacity support a single, central WM store when there is a large disparity between the single-task capacities (Experiment 1) but not when the single-task capacities are well equated (Experiment 2). In contrast, measures of the dual-task cost that normalize for differences in single-task capacity reveal evidence for modality-specific stores, regardless of single-task performance. Moreover, these normalized measures indicate that dual-task cost is much smaller if the tasks do not involve maintaining bound feature representations in WM (Experiment 3). Taken together, these experiments not only resolve a discrepancy in the field and clarify how to assess the dual-task cost but also indicate that WM capacity can be constrained both by modality-specific and modality-independent sources of information processing.

    KW - Capacity limits

    KW - Dual task

    KW - Working memory

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=82155192853&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=82155192853&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1037/a0024834

    DO - 10.1037/a0024834

    M3 - Article

    VL - 37

    SP - 1329

    EP - 1341

    JO - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

    JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

    SN - 0278-7393

    IS - 6

    ER -