Examining the influence of action on spatial working memory: The importance of selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report three experiments that examine the influence of pointing-to relative to passively viewing an array of objects that participants are attempting to memorize. Recently, Chum, Bekkering, Dodd, and Pratt (2007) provided evidence that pointing to objects enhanced memory relative to passively viewing objects when pointing instruction was manipulated within trial (e.g., point to one array but passively view the other). We replicate this result but also demonstrate that when pointing instruction is blocked (e.g., participants point to or passively view all items in an array as opposed to pointing to some while passively viewing others), pointing to an array of objects actually decreases memory relative to passively viewing that array. Moreover, when pointing is manipulated within trial, the influence of action on working-memory performance appears to be attributable to an enhancement of processing of the pointed-to items as well as a subsequent inhibition of the passively viewed array. These results demonstrate that while action can enhance working memory under conditions where a subset of items is actively selected for additional processing, when selection is not a requirement (e.g., either point to everything or passively view everything), action decreases working-memory performance. Thus, the relationship between action and spatial working memory is complex and context dependent. These results are also discussed as they relate to other similar phenomena (e.g., retrieval-induced forgetting, Corsi Blocks test) in which selection during processing may be critical, and collectively these results provide important insight into spatial working memory and the factors that influence it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".