4.7 Article

Dynamic Updating of Working Memory Resources for Visual Objects

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 31, 期 23, 页码 8502-8511

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0208-11.2011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. National Institute of Health Research Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospital/University College London
  3. Greek State Scholarships Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent neurophysiological and imaging studies have investigated how neural representations underlying working memory (WM) are dynamically updated for objects presented sequentially. Although such studies implicate information encoded in oscillatory activity across distributed brain networks, interpretation of findings depends crucially on the underlying conceptual model of how memory resources are distributed. Here, we quantify the fidelity of human memory for sequences of colored stimuli of different orientation. The precision with which each orientation was recalled declined with increases in total memory load, but also depended on when in the sequence it appeared. When one item was prioritized, its recall was enhanced, but with corresponding decrements in precision for other objects. Comparison with the same number of items presented simultaneously revealed an additional performance cost for sequential display that could not be explained by temporal decay. Memory precision was lower for sequential compared with simultaneous presentation, even when each item in the sequence was presented at a different location. Importantly, stochastic modeling established this cost for sequential display was due to misbinding object features (color and orientation). These results support the view that WM resources can be dynamically and flexibly updated as new items have to be stored, but redistribution of resources with the addition of new items is associated with misbinding object features, providing important constraints and a framework for interpreting neural data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据