Interference control in working memory: Evidence for discriminant validity between removal and inhibition tasks.

Working memory (WM) is a system for maintenance of and access to a limited number of goal-relevant representations in the service of higher cognition. Because of its limited capacity, WM requires interference-control processes, allowing us to avoid being distracted by irrelevant information. Recent...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Alodie Rey-Mermet, Krishneil A Singh, Gilles E Gignac, Christopher R Brydges, Ullrich K H Ecker
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2020-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243053
id doaj-3e5a05a5185947a9a593790c9c48eee1
record_format Article
spelling doaj-3e5a05a5185947a9a593790c9c48eee12021-03-04T12:47:17ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032020-01-011512e024305310.1371/journal.pone.0243053Interference control in working memory: Evidence for discriminant validity between removal and inhibition tasks.Alodie Rey-MermetKrishneil A SinghGilles E GignacChristopher R BrydgesUllrich K H EckerWorking memory (WM) is a system for maintenance of and access to a limited number of goal-relevant representations in the service of higher cognition. Because of its limited capacity, WM requires interference-control processes, allowing us to avoid being distracted by irrelevant information. Recent research has proposed two interference-control processes, which are conceptually similar: (1) an active, item-wise removal process assumed to remove no-longer relevant information from WM, and (2) an inhibitory process assumed to suppress the activation of distractors against competing, goal-relevant representations. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the tasks used to assess removal and inhibition measure the same interference-control construct. Results showed acceptable to good reliabilities for nearly all measures. Similar to previous studies, a structural equation modeling approach identified a reliable latent variable of removal. However, also similar to some previous studies, no latent variable of inhibition could be established. This was the case even when the correlation matrix used to compute the latent variable of inhibition was disattenuated for imperfect reliability. Critically, the individual measures of inhibition were unrelated to the latent variable of removal. These results provide tentative support for the notion that removal is not related to the interference-control processes assessed in inhibition tasks. This suggests that the removal process should be conceptualized as a process independent of the concept of inhibition, as proposed in computational WM models that implement removal as the "unbinding" of a WM item from the context in which it occurred.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243053
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Alodie Rey-Mermet
Krishneil A Singh
Gilles E Gignac
Christopher R Brydges
Ullrich K H Ecker
spellingShingle Alodie Rey-Mermet
Krishneil A Singh
Gilles E Gignac
Christopher R Brydges
Ullrich K H Ecker
Interference control in working memory: Evidence for discriminant validity between removal and inhibition tasks.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Alodie Rey-Mermet
Krishneil A Singh
Gilles E Gignac
Christopher R Brydges
Ullrich K H Ecker
author_sort Alodie Rey-Mermet
title Interference control in working memory: Evidence for discriminant validity between removal and inhibition tasks.
title_short Interference control in working memory: Evidence for discriminant validity between removal and inhibition tasks.
title_full Interference control in working memory: Evidence for discriminant validity between removal and inhibition tasks.
title_fullStr Interference control in working memory: Evidence for discriminant validity between removal and inhibition tasks.
title_full_unstemmed Interference control in working memory: Evidence for discriminant validity between removal and inhibition tasks.
title_sort interference control in working memory: evidence for discriminant validity between removal and inhibition tasks.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2020-01-01
description Working memory (WM) is a system for maintenance of and access to a limited number of goal-relevant representations in the service of higher cognition. Because of its limited capacity, WM requires interference-control processes, allowing us to avoid being distracted by irrelevant information. Recent research has proposed two interference-control processes, which are conceptually similar: (1) an active, item-wise removal process assumed to remove no-longer relevant information from WM, and (2) an inhibitory process assumed to suppress the activation of distractors against competing, goal-relevant representations. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the tasks used to assess removal and inhibition measure the same interference-control construct. Results showed acceptable to good reliabilities for nearly all measures. Similar to previous studies, a structural equation modeling approach identified a reliable latent variable of removal. However, also similar to some previous studies, no latent variable of inhibition could be established. This was the case even when the correlation matrix used to compute the latent variable of inhibition was disattenuated for imperfect reliability. Critically, the individual measures of inhibition were unrelated to the latent variable of removal. These results provide tentative support for the notion that removal is not related to the interference-control processes assessed in inhibition tasks. This suggests that the removal process should be conceptualized as a process independent of the concept of inhibition, as proposed in computational WM models that implement removal as the "unbinding" of a WM item from the context in which it occurred.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243053
work_keys_str_mv AT alodiereymermet interferencecontrolinworkingmemoryevidencefordiscriminantvaliditybetweenremovalandinhibitiontasks
AT krishneilasingh interferencecontrolinworkingmemoryevidencefordiscriminantvaliditybetweenremovalandinhibitiontasks
AT gillesegignac interferencecontrolinworkingmemoryevidencefordiscriminantvaliditybetweenremovalandinhibitiontasks
AT christopherrbrydges interferencecontrolinworkingmemoryevidencefordiscriminantvaliditybetweenremovalandinhibitiontasks
AT ullrichkhecker interferencecontrolinworkingmemoryevidencefordiscriminantvaliditybetweenremovalandinhibitiontasks
_version_ 1714801535909625856