Abstracts 2005 - The Psychonomic Society

Thursday Evening Posters 1021–1028
stead of spoken digits, and (2) a constant level of difficulty but a manipulation
of the relative monetary rewards for the visual versus auditory
tasks. Accuracy on each task increased with higher rewards,
and we observed performance tradeoffs indicating that central attention
is used as storage.
(1021)
Context Maintenance and Working Memory Capacity. THOMAS
REDICK & RANDALL W. ENGLE, Georgia Institute of Technology—
Individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) are important
in a variety of memory, attention, and intelligence tasks. Engle
and Kane (2004) proposed an account of WMC based upon the ability
to maintain goals and resolve response competition. Interestingly,
Braver, Barch, and Cohen (2002) have proposed a similar theory to
explain cognitive impairments seen in schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s disease,
and aging. We tested high and low spans on the AX-CPT in order
to compare the controlled-attention view of WMC and the contextmaintenance
view of schizophrenia and aging. The results were partially
consistent with the idea that low spans suffer from impaired context
representation, but performance differed in meaningful ways
from what would be predicted from a strict context-maintenance view.
The results are consistent with the notion that high and low spans differ
in their ability to control attention, even on a task modified to reduce
attentional demands.
(1022)
Individual Difference in Change Detection. SCOTT D. BROWN &
MARK STEYVERS, University of California, Irvine (sponsored by
Mark Steyvers)—We measure the ability of human observers to predict
the next datum in a sequence that is generated by a simple statistical
process undergoing change at random points in time. Accurate
performance in this task requires the identification of changepoints.
We assess individual differences between observers both empirically
and using two kinds of models: a Bayesian approach for change detection
and a family of cognitively plausible fast and frugal models.
Some individuals detect too many changes and hence perform suboptimally
because of excess variability. Other individuals do not detect
enough changes, and perform suboptimally because they fail to
notice short-term temporal trends.
(1023)
Controlled Attention as a Mechanism for Processing Inefficiency
Among Math Anxious Individuals. J. RUDINE & DOUGLAS A.
WARING, Appalachian State University—Cognitive deficits associated
with math anxiety are often explained using processing efficiency theory,
suggesting that working memory becomes inundated with worrisome
thoughts impeding task performance. One drawback to this theory
is the lack of a specific mechanism through which these deficits are
produced. The controlled attention view of working memory may offer
a solution to this problem. This view proposes that individuals with
lower WM capacity have more difficulty inhibiting distracting cues and
focusing on a task than do individuals with higher WM capacities. The
present study used the antisaccade task to assess math anxious individuals’
ability to inhibit distracting information. Analysis of reaction
times and accuracy rates indicated that high math anxiety individuals
were slower and less accurate than low math anxiety individuals on trials
requiring inhibition. Contrary to predictions, reflexive trials took
longer than inhibition trials. Possible reasons for these counterintuitive
results and implications for future research are discussed.
(1024)
Working Memory Capacity Predicts Attentional Blink. M. KATH-
RYN BLECKLEY, ALLISON R. HOLLINGSWORTH, & WILLIAM
S. MAKI, Texas Tech University—Working memory capacity (WMC)
has predicted performance in a number of attention tasks (Kane,
Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2002), and working
memory has been suggested as the limiting mechanism in attentional
blink (AB; Chun & Potter, 1995; Giesbrecht & Di Lollo, 1998;
55
Vogel & Luck, 2002). We present here a study that supports the contention
that WMC is the limiting mechanism in AB.
(1025)
Eye Movements in the Reading Span Task. JOHANNA K. KAAKI-
NEN, Florida State University, & JUKKA HYÖNÄ, University of
Turku—The present study examined eye movement patterns during
the reading span task (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). The results
showed that in low memory load conditions there were very few differences
between low and high span groups. However, when we compared
the different span groups at their maximum performance levels,
we found that participants with lower spans tended to pause on the
first word of the sentence, whereas participants with the highest spans
did not spend extra time on the first word. Span groups did not differ
in the time spent on the to-be-remembered word. In contrast to previous
findings (Carpenter & Just, 1989; Engle, Cantor, & Carullo,
1992), these results indicate that performance differences in the reading
span task cannot be accounted for by the time spent on the to-beremembered
information.
(1026)
The Relationships of Auditory Distraction and Measures of Working
Memory. JILL A. SHELTON, EMILY M. ELLIOTT, SHARON D.
LYNN, & THOMAS J. DOMANGUE, Louisiana State University—
Recent research has examined the relationship between auditory distraction
effects in serial recall and working memory (WM). The purposes
of the present study were to expand upon this research by
examining the effect of auditory distractions on the performance of one
WM task and to assess the relationships among three WM tasks. Participants
completed the operation–word span, size judgment span, and
n-back tasks. In the control condition, participants completed all tasks
without auditory distraction. In the treatment condition, a cell phone
rang during one specific trial of the size judgment span task. Comparisons
were made between this trial in the treatment condition and the
same trial in the control condition, and the results revealed that the cell
phone ring significantly disrupted performance on this trial in the treatment
condition. In addition, correlational analyses demonstrated that
performance on all three WM tasks was significantly correlated.
(1027)
The Word Length Effect and Stimulus Set Specificity. TAMRA J.
BIRETA, IAN NEATH, & AIMÉE M. SURPRENANT, Purdue University—Lists
of items that take less time to pronounce are recalled
better than otherwise equivalent lists of items that take more time to
pronounce, the so-called word length effect. Contrary to theories
based on the phonological loop, Hulme et al. (2004) found that long
items presented in a list with short items were recalled as well as were
short items presented in a list of only short items. In contrast, Cowan
et al. (2003) found that long items in mixed lists were recalled less
well than short items in pure lists. The experiments reported here suggest
that the different empirical findings are due to particular properties
of the stimulus sets used: one stimulus set produces results that
replicate the findings of Cowan et al., whereas all other sets so far
tested yield results that replicate the findings of Hulme et al.
(1028)
Age-Related Differences in the Phonological Similarity Effect: The
Contribution of Sensory Acuity. AIMÉE M. SURPRENANT, LISA A.
FARLEY, & IAN NEATH, Purdue University—The experiments reported
here explore age-related differences in recall of phonologically
similar and dissimilar items in pure and mixed lists. In addition to
basic sensory acuity, movement, transposition, and confusion errors
were examined in order to model the data from the two groups. Sensory
acuity accounted for some, but not all, of the variance, particularly
in the similar conditions. These data suggest that multiple nonlinear
interactions among factors underlie age-related differences in
memory performance and reinforce the usefulness of simulation
modeling in the area of cognitive aging.