Advanced search
1 file | 840.43 KB Add to list

Further evidence for temporal decay in working memory: reply to Lewandowsky and Oberauer (2009)

Author
Organization
Abstract
The sources of forgetting in working memory (WM) are a matter of intense debate: Is there a time-related decay of memory traces, or is forgetting uniquely due to representation-based interference? In a previous study, we claimed to have provided evidence supporting the temporal decay hypothesis (S. Portrat, P. Barrouillet, & V. Camos, 2008). However, reanalyzing our data, S. Lewandowsky and K. Oberauer (2009) demonstrated that they do not provide compelling evidence for temporal decay and suggested a class of alternative models favoring a representation-based interference account. In this article, we develop from the most recent proposals made by Lewandowsky and Oberauer 2 of the most plausible extensions of these alternative models. We show that neither of these extensions can account for recent findings related to between-domain WM performance and that both lead to predictions that are contradicted by new empirical evidence. Finally, we show that recent studies that have been claimed to rule out the temporal decay hypothesis do not resist close scrutiny. We conclude that the time-based resource-sharing model remains the most parsimonious way to account for forgetting and restoration of memory traces in WM.
Keywords
SERIAL-RECALL, SHORT-TERM-MEMORY, TIME, INTERFERENCE, CAPACITY, RESOURCE, MODEL, SPAN, CONSOLIDATION, PERFORMANCE, working memory, short-term memory, forgetting, temporal decay

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 840.43 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Barouillet, Pierre, Sophie Portrat, Evie Vergauwe, et al. “Further Evidence for Temporal Decay in Working Memory: Reply to Lewandowsky and Oberauer (2009).” JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION 37.5 (2011): 1302–1317. Print.
APA
Barouillet, P., Portrat, S., Vergauwe, E., Diependaele, K., & Camos, V. (2011). Further evidence for temporal decay in working memory: reply to Lewandowsky and Oberauer (2009). JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 37(5), 1302–1317.
Chicago author-date
Barouillet, Pierre, Sophie Portrat, Evie Vergauwe, Kevin Diependaele, and Valérie Camos. 2011. “Further Evidence for Temporal Decay in Working Memory: Reply to Lewandowsky and Oberauer (2009).” Journal of Experimental Psychology-learning Memory and Cognition 37 (5): 1302–1317.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Barouillet, Pierre, Sophie Portrat, Evie Vergauwe, Kevin Diependaele, and Valérie Camos. 2011. “Further Evidence for Temporal Decay in Working Memory: Reply to Lewandowsky and Oberauer (2009).” Journal of Experimental Psychology-learning Memory and Cognition 37 (5): 1302–1317.
Vancouver
1.
Barouillet P, Portrat S, Vergauwe E, Diependaele K, Camos V. Further evidence for temporal decay in working memory: reply to Lewandowsky and Oberauer (2009). JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION. 2011;37(5):1302–17.
IEEE
[1]
P. Barouillet, S. Portrat, E. Vergauwe, K. Diependaele, and V. Camos, “Further evidence for temporal decay in working memory: reply to Lewandowsky and Oberauer (2009),” JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1302–1317, 2011.
@article{1096340,
  abstract     = {{The sources of forgetting in working memory (WM) are a matter of intense debate: Is there a time-related decay of memory traces, or is forgetting uniquely due to representation-based interference? In a previous study, we claimed to have provided evidence supporting the temporal decay hypothesis (S. Portrat, P. Barrouillet, & V. Camos, 2008). However, reanalyzing our data, S. Lewandowsky and K. Oberauer (2009) demonstrated that they do not provide compelling evidence for temporal decay and suggested a class of alternative models favoring a representation-based interference account. In this article, we develop from the most recent proposals made by Lewandowsky and Oberauer 2 of the most plausible extensions of these alternative models. We show that neither of these extensions can account for recent findings related to between-domain WM performance and that both lead to predictions that are contradicted by new empirical evidence. Finally, we show that recent studies that have been claimed to rule out the temporal decay hypothesis do not resist close scrutiny. We conclude that the time-based resource-sharing model remains the most parsimonious way to account for forgetting and restoration of memory traces in WM.}},
  author       = {{Barouillet, Pierre and Portrat, Sophie and Vergauwe, Evie and Diependaele, Kevin and Camos, Valérie}},
  issn         = {{0278-7393}},
  journal      = {{JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION}},
  keywords     = {{SERIAL-RECALL,SHORT-TERM-MEMORY,TIME,INTERFERENCE,CAPACITY,RESOURCE,MODEL,SPAN,CONSOLIDATION,PERFORMANCE,working memory,short-term memory,forgetting,temporal decay}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{5}},
  pages        = {{1302--1317}},
  title        = {{Further evidence for temporal decay in working memory: reply to Lewandowsky and Oberauer (2009)}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022933}},
  volume       = {{37}},
  year         = {{2011}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: