Representaion of Instructions in Working Memory

1097 Words3 Pages

Following instructions is part of our daily lives and a very important human attribute. It makes implementation of new arbitrary behavior rather effortless in comparison to trial and error, facilitating our learning process. Despite the fundamental role for our behavioral regulation, little is known of how instructions are represented in working memory.

How do we plan an action and prepare ourselves to react in a specific way to a new and unpracticed task? Binding mechanisms have been shown to take part in action planning (Hommel, 1998; Stoet & Hommel, 1999, 2002); but does the mere instruction of an action result in binding of stimulus-response (S-R)? This is a tricky question to test experimentally since an instructed S-R mapping must be presented only once before becoming implemented.

Stoet & Hommel (1999) proposed a dual task paradigm to study binding mechanisms on action planning of implemented instructions. The so called ABBA paradigm is composed by Task A and Task B, with task B embedded in task A. Figure 1α illustrates the rationale for the paradigm, in which Stimulus A is always shown before Stimulus B and is to be responded for only after response to Stimulus B has been performed. By manipulating response-feature overlapping between A and B tasks (i.e: using the same hand to respond to both stimuli or not), they showed that planning an action (Response B) is impaired if it shares features with another, already planned action held in working memory (Response A) (Stoet & Hommel, 1999).

The argument is that planning an action involves binding between the features that specify the intended action, so that the bound feature codes are temporarily not readily available for the planning and cont...

... middle of paper ...

...ated to test various other hypotheses on the field. One possible and easy manipulation is to introduce an articulatory suppression task to be performed concurrently in order to investigate whether the results encountered are due to verbal coding. In a non reported study, Wencke et al. (2007) claimed to have found similar results when subjects used a tongue depressor in their mouths in order to suppress subvocal articulatory activities while doing the ABBA tasks.

As reproducibility is an important step when dealing with a new paradigm in a relatively new research field, our aim in this paper was to try to reproduce experiment 1 from Wencke et al. (2007) with and without articulatory suppression. We tried to keep the ABBA paradigm and stimuli as similar as those used by them, but some slight differences were inevitable and will be explained in the methods session.

Open Document