Working memory processes and intrinsic motivation: An EEG study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Processes typically encompassed by working memory (WM) include encoding, retention, and retrieval of information. Previous research has demonstrated that motivation can influence WM performance, although the specific WM processes affected by motivation are not yet fully understood. In this study, we investigated the effects of motivation on different WM processes, examining how task difficulty modulates these effects. We hypothesized that motivation level and personality traits of the participants (N = 48, 32 females; mean age = 21) would modulate the parietal alpha and frontal theta electroencephalography (EEG) correlates of WM encoding, retention, and retrieval phases of the Sternberg task. This effect was expected to be more pronounced under conditions of very high task difficulty. We found that increasing difficulty led to reduced accuracy and increased response time, but no significant relationship was found between motivation and accuracy. However, EEG data revealed that motivation influenced WM processes, as indicated by changes in alpha and theta oscillations. Specifically, higher levels of the Resilience trait-associated with mental toughness, hardiness, self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and low anxiety-were related to increased alpha desynchronization during encoding and retrieval. Increased scores of Subjective Motivation to perform well in the task were related to enhanced frontal midline theta during retention. Additionally, these effects were significantly stronger under conditions of high difficulty. These findings provide insights into the specific WM processes that are influenced by motivation, and underscore the importance of considering both task difficulty and intrinsic motivation in WM research.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".