4.4 Article

Ghosts in the machine: memory interference from the previous trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 113, Issue 2, Pages 567-577

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00402.2014

Keywords

spatial memory; interference; attractor model

Funding

  1. National Eye Institute Grant [EY-012135]
  2. National Institute of Mental Health Grant [5F31-MH-094076-04]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous memoranda can interfere with the memorization or storage of new information, a concept known as proactive interference. Studies of proactive interference typically use categorical memoranda and match-to-sample tasks with categorical measures such as the proportion of correct to incorrect responses. In this study we instead train five macaques in a spatial memory task with continuous memoranda and responses, allowing us to more finely probe working memory circuits. We first ask whether the memoranda from the previous trial result in proactive interference in an oculomotor delayed response task. We then characterize the spatial and temporal profile of this interference and ask whether this profile can be predicted by an attractor network model of working memory. We find that memory in the current trial shows a bias toward the location of the memorandum of the previous trial. The magnitude of this bias increases with the duration of the memory period within which it is measured. Our simulations using standard attractor network models of working memory show that these models easily replicate the spatial profile of the bias. However, unlike the behavioral findings, these attractor models show an increase in bias with the duration of the previous rather than the current memory period. To model a bias that increases with current trial duration we posit two separate memory stores, a rapidly decaying visual store that resists proactive interference effects and a sustained memory store that is susceptible to proactive interference.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available