Content area
Full Text
Contents
- Abstract
- Modularity of Memory
- Functional Equivalence
- Current Study
- Experiment 1: Partial Replication
- Method
- Participants
- Short-Term Memory Tasks
- Visual–Verbal Serial Recall Task
- Visual–Spatial Serial Recall Task
- Irrelevant Sounds
- Design and Procedure
- Results and Discussion
- Experiment 2: Near-Identical Replication
- Method
- Participants, Short-Term Memory Tasks, and Irrelevant Sounds
- Results and Discussion
- Bayesian Meta-Analysis
- Method
- Results
- General Discussion
- WM Model
- O-OER Model
- Perceptual-Gestural Account
- The Duplex Mechanism Account
- Similarity-Based Interference Accounts
- Attentional Accounts
- Conclusions
Figures and Tables
Abstract
In an influential article, Jones et al. (1995) provide evidence that auditory distraction by changing relative to repetitive auditory distracters (the changing-state effect) did not differ between a visual–verbal and visual–spatial serial recall task, providing evidence for an amodal mechanism for the representation of serial order in short-term memory that transcends modalities. This finding has been highly influential for theories of short-term memory and auditory distraction. However, evidence vis-à-vis the robustness of this result is sorely lacking. Here, two high-powered replications of Jones et al.’s (1995) crucial Experiment 4 were undertaken. In the first partial replication (n = 64), a fully within-participants design was adopted, wherein participants undertook both the visual–verbal and visual–spatial serial recall tasks under different irrelevant sound conditions, without a retention period. The second near-identical replication (n = 128), incorporated a retention period and implemented the task-modality manipulation as a between-participants factor, as per the original Jones et al. (1995; Experiment 4) study. In both experiments, the changing-state effect was observed for visual–verbal serial recall but not for visual–spatial serial recall. The results are consistent with modular and interference-based accounts of distraction and challenge some aspects of functional equivalence accounts.
The notion of modularity within working memory (WM) is pervasive, perhaps in part because of its intuitive appeal—there can be little dispute that the effector systems involved in fulfilling goal-directed-behavior in verbal and spatial tasks are distinct (e.g., Tremblay, Parmentier, et al., 2006; Tremblay, Saint-Aubin, & Jalbert, 2006). For example, the nature of rehearsal closely resembles the stimulus input—inner speech for sequential verbal information and eye movements for sequential visual–spatial information (Tremblay, Parmentier, et al., 2006; Tremblay, Saint-Aubin, & Jalbert, 2006; but see Awh & Jonides, 2001