PSYC 203 RESEARCH REPORTS

Austin Cao

1) Memory and machines

Vosskuhl et. al. describe a method of modulating theta frequencies to increase short-term

memory in their paper titled Increase in short-term memory capacity induced by down-

regulating individual theta frequency via transcranial alternating current stimulation. It has been

proposed that phase-amplitude coupling of gamma and theta waves in the brain is responsible for

working memory and short-term memory. In simple terms, this just means that interaction

between two different frequencies of brain waves represent different memory items as they are

being encoded. Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) is a method of changing

those frequencies, and in this study, they were delivered at a frequency just below theta waves.

EEG were taken before and after stimulation to confirm that the wave coupling was changing,

and digit span and three-back task were given before, during, and after stimulation. The group

receiving tACS showed a significant increase in STM compared to the control fake-stimulation

group, while WM was unaffected. The authors conclude that lowering theta frequency causes an

increase in STM capacity.

This paper was particularly interesting because it ties together two concepts we studied

separately: a method of stimulating brain activity and different components of memory. I also

personally enjoyed the in-depth exploration of the biological basis of what are considerably

abstract concepts: working memory and short-term memory. In class, we discussed patient K.F.,

who had damage to the parietal lobe, resulting in normal LTM, but impaired STM. This helped

us establish short-term memory as a separate mechanism for temporary storage, that decays

quickly over time and can be measured with tasks like digit or letter span. Miller estimated that
the magical number of items we can store in STM is 7+/-2. But while its clear that short-term

memory has some localization in brain, whether it has specific frequencies is less clear. The

theta-gamma coding theory describes each theta wavelength as the rehearsal of a list of items,

while each gamma wavelength represents a specific item on the list. The more gamma

wavelengths that can fit in a theta wavelength, the more items can be stored in STM. Its a

truly wild, yet fascinating theory that has only correlational evidence so far, with this paper

making the argument for causation as well.

My take is that there are too many logical leaps necessary for the results of the study to

directly support this theory. First, it necessitates the assumption that these specific waves are

causing this effect. I would have loved to see a dose-response relationship between the level of

the decrease in theta frequency and the digit span during stimulation. At the very least, having

negative controls with other known brain frequencies wouldve helped established the specificity

of the theta waves. Second, the theory requires this perfect match between wavelengths and

items stored in STM. Do we encode memories in perfect rhythms? Probably not. So what other

confounding variables or alternate mechanisms are in play that can explain the complexity and

variability of memory? Yet, whether the results can be linked to the theory or not hardly takes

away from the clinical significance of this paper. We briefly mentioned the quite popular

transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in class, and tACS is a different method of

accomplishing the same result. These methods will have a significant impact on psychology

research, giving studies a biological basis for explaining individual differences in thought and

behavior. I would specifically be interested in seeing if tACS can temporarily rescue declining

STM in individuals with Alzheimers, retrograde amnesia, and even Wernicke-Korsakoffs

syndrome, which is known to cause impaired short-term memory.

2) Tests dont help! (every students favorite psych study)

Kuhbandner et. al. report a study of the effects of extrinsic motivation on long-term

memory in their paper titled Providing extrinsic reward for test performance undermines long-

term memory acquisition. It is well-known that testing previously studied material is a superior

strategy for encoding to long-term memory when compared to restudying the same material.

However, Kuhbandner et. al. hypothesize that extrinsic motivators that are often associated with

testing in an academic environment may reduce the ability of testing to improve long-term

memory. To test this hypothesis, they use a foreign language vocabulary test to assess recall of

previously studied words. Participants were given a relearning session immediately after

studying, in which 1/3 of the words were retested and 1/3 were restudied. One week later, recall

was then assessed. In one group, participants were given money based on their final test

performance. In the control group, no reward was given. The reward group recalled fewer words

than the control group in both the relearning session and the final test. Yet even in the reward

group, words that were retested were still easier to recall than words that were restudied.

Kuhbandner et. al. conclude that performance-contingent rewards can reduced the benefits of

retesting as a study tool, but do not completely negate them.

These findings present a fascinating distinction on our discussion of study tools for long-

term memory. The paper states that retesting is generally accepted to be a better strategy than

restudying, a conclusion that we reached in class. We specifically pointed out that maintenance

rehearsal, while a common tool for students, has relatively small effects on long-term memory.

Hartwig and Dunlosky cite that 83.6% of students report using rereading notes or textbooks as a

study tool, while fewer chose to use other strategies like testing or spacing. Nickerson and

Adams point out a great example in their study, where only 42% of participants could chose the
actual penny from a lineup, even though we have been repeatedly been exposed to pennies in the

past. The reasons why testing are a superior strategy has also been studied by Roediger and

Karpicke. Their experiment demonstrated by while rereading provided better recall in the short-

term, retesting was superior on tests 2 days after studying and 1 week after studying. They

suggest that this process involves transferring appreciate processing between encoding and

retrieval, where testing yourself has similarities to the final test.

In this context, Kuhbandner et. al. present a potential downside to testing as a study tool:

the fact that each test brings extrinsic factors into the students life. Test performance can have

consequences related to parental approval, students self-esteem, and peer-related effects. While

this is outside this scope of our class, I think these social mechanisms are quite interesting and

extremely relevant for the typical college student. Extrinsic motivators functions similarly to

how emotion interferes with cognition, adding stressors/distractors that can decrease

performance. Extrinsic motivators can also shift focus from effort to performance,

undermining growth mindsets that can benefit students in the long-run. As we discussed in class,

elaborative strategies that access deeper levels of processing allow for superior encoding. A

change in motivation and mindset may push students to shallower levels of processing, despite

the retesting condition. These reasons may explain why Kuhbandner et. al. saw such a significant

decrease in the benefits of testing.

3) How are you so good at math?

Otsuka and Osaka report a study on Baddeleys model of working memory in their paper

titled High-performers use the phonological loop less to process mental arithmetic during

working memory tasks. The four components of working memory in Baddeleys model are the

central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and the episodic buffer (not studied

here). In a mental arithmetic task, the different components of working memory work together to

solve a problem. The authors hypothesize that individual differences in performance can be

attributed to unequal utilization of the different components. In their experiment, participants

complete a two-digit addition task while under some type of mental load. The random tapping

condition loads the central executive, articulatory suppression loads the phonological loop, and

spatial tapping loads the visual-spatial sketchpad. By loading a component and observing the

decline in performance on the addition task, the researchers can estimate an individuals

dependence on that component. Otsuka and Osaka found that high-performers show a

performance decline only during random tapping, while low-performance show performance

decline during random tapping and articulatory suppression. They conclude that high-

performance reduce their dependence on the phonological loop by utilizing the central executive

to switch to a different strategy.

This paper seeks to answer the question of whether individual differences in arithmetic

performance can be explained with Baddeleys model. In class, we discussed how the

phonological loop involves a subvocalization process that helps us store information for short

time periods. Baddeley made argument with his study on articulatory suppression, where by

participants were asked to listen to lists of words: some lists have acoustic similarity, some have

meaning similarity, and some have no connection. Meaning similarity only slightly decreases
memory recall, while acoustic similarity significantly reduces it. This is called the phonological

similarity effect. However, when participants are asked to undergo articulatory suppression,

whereby they repeat a syllable out loud over and over, this effect disappears. This demonstrates

that the phonological loop must be involved in working memory. But to what extent? Otsuka and

Osaka argue that low-performers are more reliant on the phonological loop than high performers.

Specifically, two-digit addition usually requires carrying a number, which would need to be

contained in the phonological loop. The authors hypothesize that high-performers can complete

the carry before the information decays in working memory, thus reducing load on the

phonological loop.

The authors perspective on working memory has strong similarities to Engels argument

that executive attention influences individual differences in working memory. Engel states that

an individuals ability to focus attention and inhibit distractions predicts working memory (and

thus academic performance). While Otsuka and Osaka agree with Engel in that the central

executive influences individual differences, they seem to disagree on what the specific

mechanism is. Instead of attention, Otsuka and Osaka argue that, in the case of mental

arithmetic, it is retrieval speed that allows high-performers to decrease phonological loop strain

and complete the task. Furthermore, Engel says that reading span and operation span are

different tasks that can measure WM capacity. Otsuka and Osaka offer a clarification in their

conclusion that operational span, and not reading span, is specifically predictive of WM tasks

with numerical stimuli. Their study suggests that numerical information might have a separate

processing route in working memory compared to other information. High-performers may

simply be better at accessing that separate route.