CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 133Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory Processes and Influences

Control of interference during working memory updating.

Szmalec, Arnaud, Verbruggen, Frederick, Vandierendonck, André, Kemps, Eva·2011·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
DOI 10.1037/a0020365
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The current study examined the nature of the processes underlying working memory updating. In 4 experiments using the n-back paradigm, the authors demonstrate that continuous updating of items in working memory prevents strong binding of those items to their contexts in working memory, and hence leads to an increased susceptibility to proactive interference. Results of Experiments 1 and 2 show that this interference reflects a competition between a process that reveals the degree of familiarity of an item and a context-sensitive recollection process that depends on the strength of bindings in working memory. Experiment 3 further clarifies the origins of interference during updating by demonstrating that even items that are semantically related to the updated working memory contents but that have not been maintained in working memory before cause proactive interference. Finally, the results of Experiment 4 indicate that the occurrence of interference leads to top-down behavioral adjustments that prioritize recollection over familiarity assessment. The implications of these findings for the construct validity of the n-back task, for the control processes involved in working memory updating, and for the concept of executive control more generally are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0020365

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In n-back tasks, subjects must rapidly update working memory to disengage from outdated information in addition to maintaining n items.

    “One challenge is that, in addition to having to maintain n items, subjects must also rapidly update the contents of working memory to disengage from outdated information (Oberauer, 2009;Shipstead et al., 2016;Szmalec et al., 2011)”

    From Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back (2025) · cites this paper as Szmalec et al., 2011

  • Performance on the n-back can be supported by recognition or a familiarity function rather than by explicit recall.

    “Thus, performance on the n-back can be supported by recognition or a familiarity function rather than explicit recall (Oberauer, 2009;Szmalec et al., 2011)”

    From Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back (2025) · cites this paper as Szmalec et al., 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Szmalec, A., Verbruggen, F., Vandierendonck, A., & Kemps, E.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Flinders University (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2011
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
137-151
ISSN
  • 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1277
DOI
10.1037/a0020365
OpenAlex
W2036977573
Cited by
133
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
working memory updating, proactive interference, n-back task, recollection, familiarity, semantic relatedness, top-down control, executive function, construct validity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Psychological, Photic Stimulation, Proactive Inhibition, Reaction Time, Semantics, Visual Perception, Recognition, Psychology, Young Adult, Executive Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review