Proactive Interference in Verbal and Non-Verbal Working Memory 4042

Melissa Brandon, Amishi P. Jha, John C. Trueswell,

Laura H. F. Barde and Sharon L. Thompson-Schill
University of Pennsylvania

Background Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Exp. 2 Results

•Familiarization of faces by a Letter 2-Back task with faces as distracters
• Conflict introduced by presenting a recently seen, but incorrect, test (Task Accuracy = 92%)
s Correlational Anaylsis

probe is associated with longer response times and increased errors on •Followed by face recognition confidence ratings: Total Dex Dex Factor 1 Dex Factor 2 Dex Factor 3 Dex Factor 4 Dex Factor 5
p=0.055
verbal working memory tests. z + t Hits= 57%, False Alarms = 36%, Overall Accuracy = 60% (N=50) PI on Error Rate 0.273 0.201 0.256 0.238 0.187 0.104

+ •Then 5 blocks of the face recognition task seen below

• Neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies have supported a link Q
x
between this proactive interference (PI) effect on verbal working memory
and the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG): 1500ms 0.4
3000ms

Recent -Non-Recent (%)

3000ms 0.3
There was a trend towards a positive correlation between
1. Increased activation centered in left IFG z the DEX and the magnitude of the PI effect on error rate
0.2
associated with PI.1,2,3 in the face working memory task. (p = 0.055); none of the
correlations with the DEX subscales was significant.
2. Pronounced PI effect in patient with left IFG t + c 0.1

damage.4 + Non-Recent 0

l B NO -0.1
Yes
1500ms -0.5 0 .5 1
DEX
1.5 2 2.5 3

3000ms
3000ms
n
2000ms
From Jonides et al., 1998
c + l 3000ms 3
From Thompson-Schill et al. 2002
Recent
+ 3000ms
2.5

f T NO 2

Results

Dex Factor 5
However, Factor 5 of the DEX (social regulation) was
Questions 1500ms
3000ms
1.5

1
correlated with a subject’s tendency to apply a verbal
label to a face( r = 0.345, p < 0.05).
3000ms Response Times by Condition 0.5
• Is proactive interference (PI) unique to verbal working memory or does it N = 50 Effect of Probe Recency

affect non-verbal working memory in the same way? Results 1180

1160
* 80

60
*
0

-0.5
Response Times by Condition 5 10 15 20

Recent - Non-Recent (ms)

1140
40 # of verbal labels
• Does normal variation in executive control correlate with the degree of

Response Time (ms)

N= 17 Effect of Probe Recency 1120 20
1040

proactive interference on verbal and non-verbal working memory tasks? 1020 * 1100
Recent
Nonrecent
0
Yes No
80 -20
* 1080

Recent - Non-Recent (ms)

1000 60 -40
Response Time (ms)

980 * 40 1060 -60

20
Recent 1040 -80
960 0
Visuo-Spatial Central Nonrecent
-20 Yes No
Probe Type

Conclusions
1020
Sketchpad Executive Phonological Loop 940
-40 Yes No
*
920 -60 Probe Type
-80
900 Probe Type

880
Significant Main effects for both Response (F= 4.5, * = Significant Difference at p< 0.01 • Proactive interference affects performance on both verbal and
Yes No p<0.05) and Recency (F= 9.4, p<0.05) with no
Probe Type interaction. non-verbal working memory.
Significant main effect for Response (F= 20.32, p< 0.01) * = Significant Difference at p< 0.05
and a significant interaction between Response and Recency (F = 23.479, p< 0.01). Error Rate by Condition • The degree of interference is correlated with self-reported
50%
N = 50 problems with executive control. In Experiment 1, we observed
Effect of Probe Recency
*
Design 4.0%
Error Rate by Condition
N= 17 Effect of Probe Recency
45%

40%
*
15.00%

10.00%
* a positive correlation between proactive interference and scores
on the DEX (overall score, Factor 2, and Factor 4). In

Recent - Non-Recent (%)

*

Error Rate (%)

35% 5.00%
3.5% 3.00%
*
PI was measured in two working memory tasks: 3.0%
* 30%
Recent
Nonrecent
0.00%
Experiment 2, we observed a trend towards a positive
Recent - Non-Recent (%)

2.00% Yes No
Error Rate (%)

25% -5.00%
2.5%
Recent
1.00%
N
-10.00%
correlation between proactive interference and the DEX
-Verbal task = Item recognition with letters [consonants only], N=17 2.0%
1.5%
Nonrecent
0.00%

-1.00%
Yes No
20%

15%
-15.00%
*
(overall score).
Probe Type

1.0% -2.00% 10%

-Non-Verbal task = Item recognition with faces, N=50 0.5% -3.00% * Yes No
• Together these results provide further support for a generalized
Probe Type
Probe Type
0.0%
Yes No Significant main effect for Response (F= 34.241 p< 0.01)
* = Significant Difference at p< 0.01 executive control system that works to resolve conflict among
Probe Type and a significant interaction between Response and
Recency (F= 80.507 p< 0.01).
competing alternatives .
Significant interaction between Response and Recency , F=13.03, p< 0.01 * = Significant Difference at p< 0.05

Dsyexecutive Questionnaire Total DEX

Analysis of Individual Difference in Executive Control

DEX Factor 1 DEX Factor 2 DEX Factor 3 DEX Factor 4 DEX Factor 5
Most Labeled Face Least Labeled Face
References
After completing the working memory task, subjects were
p < 0.05 asked to report any labels they may have assigned the faces. 1. Jonides, J., Smith, E. E., Marshuetz, C., Kooper, R.A., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (1998). Inhibition in verbal working
Interference Score 0.532 0.399 0.611 0.245 0.656 0.065 The number of verbal labels reported per subject ranged from
• Normal variation in executive control can be assessed using the 3 to 19 for the 20 faces with a median of 11 labels reported.
memory revealed by brain activation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 8410-8413.
2. D’ Esposito, M., Postle, B.R., Jonides, J., & Smith, E. E. (1999). The neural substrate and temporal dynamics of
Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX). Correlation of Interference Score to Total DEX Score interference effects in working memory as revealed by event-related functional MRI. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 96, 7514-7519.
150
• The DEX comprises 20 statements about executive control rated on a Verbally labeled by 46 out 50 Labeled by only 4
3. Nelson, J.K., Reuter-Lorenz, P. A, Sylvester, C.C., Jonides, J., & Smith, E. E. (2003). Dissociable neural mechanisms
underlying response-based and familiarity-based conflict in working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of
5-point scale; a higher score on the DEX indicates more dysexecutive 100 subjects (e.g. “eyebrows”). out of 50 subjects. Sciences,100, 11171-11175.
Interference

behavior. 4. Thompson-Schill, S. L., Jonides, J., Marshuetz, C., Smith, E. E., D’ Esposito, M., Kan, I. P., Knight, R. T., & Swick, D.
50 (2002). Effects of frontal lobe damage on interference effects in working memory.Journal of Cognitive, Affective &
Behavioral Neuroscience, 2, 109-120
Overall Error rate went down with the use However, the interference effect on error rate was
• The Dysexecutive Questionnaire has been resolved to 5 factors 5: 0
of more verbal labels (r = -0.35). not correlated with verbalization (r = -0.09). 5. Chan, R. C. K. (2001). Dysexecutive symptoms among a non-clinical sample: study with the use of the Dysexecutive
Questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 551-565.

-50
Factor 1- “Disinhibition of behavior and emotion, lack of concern, 0 .5 1 1.5 0.5 0.4
Dex
temporal sequencing problems” 0.45
Acknowledgements
Recent - Non-Recent (%)

0.3
Factor 2- “Planning problems, poor decision-making ability, Correlation of Interference to DEX Factor 2 Correlation of Interference to DEX Factor 4 0.4
Total Error Rate

distractibility, and impulsivity” 150 150

0.35 0.2
This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health (RO1 MH60414 and RO1 MH67008)
and the Searle Scholars Program.
Factor 3- “Knowing-doing dissociation, lack of insight and social 0.3
0.1 We thank Erika Calderon for her assistance with data collection and analysis.
100
awareness, apathy of mood, and shallowing of affective 100 0.25
Interference

Interference

0
response” 50 50
0.2

0.15
Factor 4- “Abstract-thinking problems, confabulation, and perseverance”
Factor 5- “Concern/lack of concern for social rules and aggression” 0 0 0.1
5 10 15 20
-0.1
Contact
5 10 15 20 For a preprint of this poster please contact Melissa Brandon (mbrandon@psych.upenn.edu).
# of verbal labels # of verbal labels
-50 -50
-0.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 .5 1 1.5
For more information about our research lab please visit: http://www.psych.upenn.edu/stslab/stsindex.html
Dex2 Dex4