|
|
|
| Gating mechanisms of long-term memory affects working memory |
| ZHANG Yin1,2,3, LI Yue2,3, CHEN Wei2,3, LI Yongxin1 |
1 Postdoctoral Research Station of Psychology, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004;
2 Department of Psychology, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing 312000;
3 Center for Brain, Mind and Education, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing 312000 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Long-term and working memories are important ways of storing information. Long-term memory has an effect on working memory. However, there are different views on the mechanism of long-term memory specifically affecting working memory. This study focuses on the effects of long-term memory on working memory from the perspective of gating mechanisms. First, we review the paradigms and results of gating mechanisms. Including the Recall reporting paradigm, Hebb paradigm, and Reference-back paradigm. It has been shown that the “attentional gate” controls the flow of information from long-term memory to working memory. The working memory representation is updated when the gates are opened. When the gate is closed, working memory representation is maintained undisturbed. Second, we discussed the cognitive mechanisms of gating from the perspectives of item and associative representations. Finally, we make a summary and put forward some suggestions for further research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 刘兆敏, 郭春彦. (2013).工作记忆和长时记忆共享信息表征的 ERP 证据.心理学报, 45(3), 276-284.
[2] 刘泽军, 刘伟. (2022).一体化促进联结记忆的作用机制:熟悉性和回想加工.心理科学进展, 30(10), 2240-2253.
[3] 孙彦良, 宋佳汝, 辛晓雯, 丁晓伟, 李寿欣. (2021).视觉工作记忆的同类别存储优势.心理学报, 53(11), 1189-1202.
[4] 张引, 梁腾飞, 陈江涛, 叶超雄, 刘强. (2019).连接视觉长时记忆与视觉工作记忆的认知及其神经机制.生理学报, 71(1), 62-72.
[5] 张引, 梁腾飞, 叶超雄, 刘强. (2020).长时联结表征对工作记忆的抑制效应.心理学报, 52(5), 562-571.
[6] Artuso C., Bossi F., Belacchi1 C., & Palladino P.(2022). Effects of semantic relationship and preactivation on memory updating. Cognitive Processing, 23, 407-422.
[7] Bridwell D. A., Cavanagh J. F., Collins A. G., Nunez M. D., Srinivasan R., Stober S., & Calhoun V. D. (2018). Moving beyond ERP components: A selective review of approaches to integrate EEG and behavior.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 106.
[8] Brady T. F., Störmer V. S., & Alvarez G. A. (2016). Working memory is not fixed-capacity: More active storage capacity for real-world objects than for simple stimuli.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 7459-7464.
[9] Brady, T. F., &Strmer, V. S. (2021). The role of meaning in visual working memory: Real-world objects, but not simple features, benefit from deeper processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology.Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(7), 942-958.
[10] Cowan, N. (2017). The many faces of working memory and short-term storage.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(4), 1158-1170.
[11] Cowan, & Nelson. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87-185.
[12] Engen, H. G., & Anderson, M. C. (2018). Memory control: A fundamental mechanism of emotion regulation.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(11), 982-995.
[13] Eichenbaum, H. (2016). Memory: Organization and control.Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 19-45.
[14] Gohil K., Dippel G., & Beste C. (2016). Questioning the role of the frontopolar cortex in multi-component behavior-a TMS/EEG study.Scientific Reports, 6(1), 22317.
[15] Hebb, D. O. (1961). Distinctive features of learning in the higher animal.Brain Mechanisms and Learning, 37, 46.
[16] Hu, R., & Jacobs, R. A. (2021). Semantic influence on visual working memory of object identity and location.Cognition, 217, 104891.
[17] Han M., Mao X., Kartvelishvili N., Li W., & Guo C. (2018). Unitization mitigates interference by intrinsicnegative emotion in familiarity and recollection of associative memory: Electrophysiological evidence.Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(6), 1259-1268.
[18] Liu Z. X., Grady C., & Moscovitch M. (2016). Effects of prior-knowledge on brain activation and connectivity during associative memory encoding.Cerebral Cortex, 27(3), 1991-2009.
[19] Lu B., Liu. Z., Wang Y., & Guo C. (2020). The different effects of concept definition and interactive imagery encoding on associative recognition for word and picture stimuli.International Journal of Psychophysiology, 158, 178-189.
[20] Li X., Xiong Z., Theeuwes J., & Wang B. (2020). Visual memory benefits from prolonged encoding time regardless of stimulus type.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(10), 1998-2005.
[21] Mizrak, E., & Oberauer, K. (2022). Working memory recruits long-term memory when it is beneficial: Evidence from the Hebb effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(4), 763-780.
[22] Oberauer, K. (2002). Access to information in working memory: Exploring the focus of attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 411-421.
[23] Oberauer K., Awh E., & Sutterer D. W. (2016). The role of long-term memory in a test of visual working memory: Proactive facilitation but no proactive interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(1), 1-22.
[24] Oberauer K, & Bialkova S. (2009). Accessing information in working memory: Can the focus of attention grasp two elements at the same time?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(1), 64-87.
[25] O'Donnell R. E., Clement A., & Brockmole J. R. (2018). Semantic and functional relationships among objects increase the capacity of visual working memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(7), 1151-1158.
[26] Oberauer K., Jones T., & Lewandowsky S. (2015). The Hebb repetition effect in simple and complex memory span.Memory & Cognition, 43(6), 852-865.
[27] Oberauer, K., & Meyer, N. (2009). The contributions of encoding, retention, and recall to the Hebb effect.Memory, 17(7), 774-781.
[28] Oberauer K., Awh E., &Sutterer D. W. (2017). The role of long-term memory in a test of visual working memory: Proactive facilitation but no proactive interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(1), 1-22.
[29] Quirk, C., & Vogel, E. (2017). No evidence for an object working memory capacity benefit with extended viewing time.Journal of Vision, 17(10), 112-112.
[30] Rac-Lubashevsky, R., & Kessler, Y. (2016). Dissociating working memory updating and automatic updating: The reference-back paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(6), 951-969.
[31] Rempel, S.et al. (2021). Distinguishing multiple coding levels in theta band activity during working memory gating processes.Neuroscience. 478, 11-23.
[32] Steel A., Billings M. M., Silson E. H., & Robertson C. E. (2021). A network linking scene perception and spatial memory systems in posterior cerebral cortex.Nature Communications, 12(1), 2632.
[33] Scharinger C, Soutschek A, Schubert T, Gerjets P., (2017). Comparison of the working memory load in N-back and working memory span tasks by means of EEG frequency band power and P300 amplitude.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 6.
[34] Starr A., Srinivasan M., & Bunge S. A. (2020). Semantic knowledge influences visual working memory in adults and children.Plos one, 15(11), e0241110.
[35] Tibon R., Greve A., & Henson R. (2018). The missing link? Testing a schema account of unitization.Memory & Cognition, 46(7), 1023-1040.
[36] Verschooren S., Kessler Y., & Egner T. (2021). Evidence for a single mechanism gating perceptual and long-term memory information into working memory.Cognition, 212, 104668.
[37] Wyble B., Swan G., & Callahan-Flintoft C. (2016). Measuring visual memory in its native format.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 790-791.
[38] Xie, W., & Zhang, W. (2018). Familiarity speeds up visual short-term memory consolidation: Electrophysiological evidence from contralateral delay activities. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(1), 1-13.
[39] Xu, L. Z., Feng, J. F & Yu, L. C. (2022). Avalanche criticality in individuals, fluid intelligence, and working memory.Human Brain Mapping, 43(8), 2534-2553.
[40] Yuan S., Suna T., & Xiao F. (2022). The brain responses to the gating opening mechanism on perceptual and conceptual mismatches in the 1-back matching task.NeuroReport, 33(17), 771-776. |
|
|
|
