Abstracts 2005 - The Psychonomic Society

Papers 175–181 Saturday Morning
hippocampal lesions. Undergraduate subjects received recognition
memory tests 1 h, 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, or 8 weeks following study,
and the hippocampal patients received easy and hard recognition tests
3 min after study. Our ROC results argue against the idea that the hippocampus
selectively subserves recollection and, more generally,
against the high-threshold dual-process model of recognition memory.
11:00–11:15 (175)
Genetic Influences on Memory Function in Healthy Individuals.
LARS-GÖRAN NILSSON, Stockholm University—On the basis of a
prospective cohort study on memory, health, and aging, it is proposed
that genetic markers affect memory function in a way that is of interest
for memory theory. Two markers related to the immune system
(Comlement C3 and Haptoglibine) affect episodic memory, but not semantic
memory. With demented and potentially demented people and
people with cardiovascular disease, ApolipoproteinE (APOE) affects
episodic memory—in particular, recall—and executive function.
There is also a predictable decrease in episodic memory as a function
of the dose of the malign ε4 allele of this gene. The COMT gene, related
to the dopamine system, also affects episodic memory and executive
function, but not other memory systems. The results obtained are discussed
in terms of gene–gene and gene–environment interactions.
11:20–11:35 (176)
Bilateral Eye Movements Impair the Encoding and Enhance the
Retrieval of Episodic Memories. STEPHEN D. CHRISTMAN &
MICHAEL BUTLER, University of Toledo—Engaging in bilateral
saccadic eye movements (EMs) immediately prior to retrieval has
been shown to enhance the retrieval of episodic, but not semantic,
memories (Christman, Garvey, Propper, & Phaneuf, 2003; Christman,
Propper, & Dion, 2004). The present study extended this paradigm by
investigating the effect of EMs at encoding, as well as at retrieval.
EMs prior to encoding led to a significant impairment in episodic recall
( p = .004), relative to no-EM controls. In contrast, in the absence
of EMs at encoding, EMs at retrieval led to marginally better episodic
recall ( p = .12). EM manipulations had no effects on tests of implicit
and semantic memory. Thus, bilateral saccadic EMs impair versus enhance
the encoding versus retrieval of episodic memories, respectively.
Results are interpreted in terms of EM-induced increases in
cholinergic activity (resulting in episodic memories being integrated
into semantic networks) versus interhemispheric interaction (resulting
in enhanced access to right-hemisphere–based retrieval mechanisms).
11:40–11:55 (177)
A Basic Systems Approach to Episodic Memory. DAVID C. RUBIN,
Duke University—A model of episodic memory is proposed that assumes
that memories are constructed from information in the basic
systems of the mind and brain, including vision, audition, olfaction,
other senses, spatial imagery, language, emotion, narrative, and motor
output. Each of these systems has its own functions, neural substrates,
processes, structures, and kinds of schemata, which have been extensively
studied individually, but not as interacting components of episodic
memory. Neuropsychological, neuroimaging, and behavioral findings
that arise from applying the model to autobiographical memory are
presented and used to argue that a model such as the one proposed is
the only way to understand episodic memory for multimodal stimuli
routinely encountered outside the laboratory. The model is contrasted
to existing behavioral and neural models of memory.
Working Memory
Grand Ballroom West, Saturday Morning, 10:00–12:00
Chaired by Andrew R. A. Conway, Princeton University
10:00–10:15 (178)
An fMRI Analysis of Functional Localization and Integration in
Working Memory Networks: An Individual-Differences Approach.
ANDREW R. A. CONWAY, Princeton University, JEREMY R. GRAY,
28
Yale University, AGATHA LENARTOWICZ, Princeton University,
TODD S. BRAVER & GREG C. BURGESS, Washington University,
DEIDRE L. KOLARICK, NOAH A. SHAMOSH, & A. SCHAEFER,
Yale University, & RANDALL W. ENGLE, Georgia Institute of Technology—To
identify sources of variability in working memory (WM),
fMRI was used to examine brain activity during a three-back task.
Subjects (n = 47) performed blocks of three-back that had either words
or faces as stimuli. WM performance was recorded during the scan;
fluid intelligence was assessed separately. Functional connectivity
analyses were conducted using spatiotemporal partial least-squares
(st-PLS; McIntosh, Chau, & Protzner, 2004). Task-related activation
was also examined by fitting general linear models (GLMs) on a
voxel-by-voxel basis. We derived estimates of both individual and
group-mean effects, using block-design analyses (for st-PLS, taskrelated
latent variables and individual loadings; for GLM, randomeffects
t or Z maps and individual percentage of signal change by voxel).
For both methods, group maps were similar in the regions implicated
(loading on a task-related latent variable, or activating from resting
fixation), including the anterior cingulate and the bilateral parietal and
lateral prefrontal cortices. Moreover, both st-PLS and GLM activity
parameters predicted fluid intelligence.
10:20–10:35 (179)
The Relationship Between Inhibition and Working Memory: A
Latent-Variable Approach. DAVID Z. HAMBRICK & ELIZABETH
A. HELDER, Michigan State University, LYNN HASHER, University
of Toronto and Rotman Research Institute, & ROSE T. ZACKS, Michigan
State University (read by Lynn Hasher)—Inhibition is currently
a major focus of research in cognitive psychology and has been implicated
in individual and developmental differences in a variety of
tasks. We present evidence concerning the distinction between two aspects
of inhibition proposed to regulate the contents of working memory
(Hasher, Zacks, & May, 1999). Access is the ability to selectively
process information relevant to the task at hand, whereas deletion is
the ability to discard information that is no longer relevant. Two hundred
thirty-six participants, ranging in age from 18 to 87 years, performed
tasks designed to assess these functions, along with working
memory tasks. There was evidence for distinct access and deletion
factors, and together, these factors accounted for a large proportion of
age-related variance in working memory. These results support the
view of inhibition as a multidimensional construct and further support
the role of inhibition in cognitive aging. Theoretical and methodological
implications are discussed.
10:40–10:55 (180)
Do Working Memory Spans Depend Only on Time? VALÉRIE
CAMOS & PIERRE BARROUILLET, Université de Bourgogne—Our
model, the time-based resource-sharing model, is a new model that accounts
for working memory spans in adults and, more generally, for
working memory functioning. It assumes that memory traces decay as
soon as attention is switched away. Thus, the proportion of time during
which the processing component of any working memory span
task captures attention determines its cognitive load and, thus, the
spans. An open question is whether the spans are only a mere function
of time or depend also on the nature of the processing component
that captures attention. In a series of experiments, we investigated this
question by comparing the effect on spans of different activities (selection
of response, retrieval from memory) while time was held constant.
11:00–11:15 (181)
“False” Working Memories: Memory Distortion in a Mere Four Seconds.
ALEXANDRA S. ATKINS & PATRICIA A. REUTER-LORENZ,
University of Michigan (read by Patricia A. Reuter-Lorenz)—False memories
are well-established, long-term memory phenomena: Semantically
related lures are confidently and erroneously remembered as
studied items. We have discovered this effect in working memory as
well. In an item recognition task that required four semantically related
words to be remembered over a 3- to 4-sec retention interval, se-