1. Graphical Representations.
Hydie A. Pavick and Nancy B. Carlisle
Psychological Sciences; University of California, Davis
Acknowledgements
Luck, S.J,. & Vecera, S.P. (2002). Attentions. In H. Pasher (Series
Ed) & S. Yantis (Volume Ed.), Stevens’ handbook of
Experimental Psychology: Vol. I. Sensation and Perception
(3rd ed., pp.235-286). New York, Wiley.
Luck, S.J., & Vogel, E.K. (1997). The capacity of visual working
memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390. 279-281
Conclusion
So far the preliminary data suggests that encoding
time does play a role in working memory capacity
measurement but to what extent is still unclear. A
stronger understanding of encoding times in
relationship with working memory capacity could
enhance the way humans obtain and integrate
information to knowledge.
Experiment
We are interested in finding a relationship
between stimulus encoding times and the working
memory capacity on a multiple change detection
task and a change location task. The first factor for
the experiment is the way working memory
capacity is measured. Multiple change detection
consists of observing whether the stimuli
presented change in anyway or remained the
same between the two presentations; while
change location consists of noting the exact
location of a change between two presentations of
the stimuli. The second factor is the encoding
duration; in this case either 100 milliseconds of
500 milliseconds.
Introduction
Working memory research remains at the forefront
of cognitive psychologists’ attention. This system
of the brain that stores transitory information to
integrate with future and previous knowledge has
a limited capacity and can affect processes such
as reading, reasoning and problem solving.
Cognitive scientists are curious if certain
circumstances can increase or decrease working
memory capacity.
Methods
Participants were given two tasks change
localization and multiple change detection (the
order of the task given was reversed every
trial). Using the instruction panels below each
participant did 120 trials of the change
localization task and 240 trials of the multiple
change detection task, with a five minute break
in-between tasks.
Results
1st Hypothesis: Working memory capacity with
one measure should be related to the working
memory capacity of other measures.
*The correlation between MCDk .1 and MCDk.5 came out
to 0.40387392 and the correlation between CLk .1 and
Clk .5 came out to be 0.68325474.
The correlation data suggests working memory
capacity of one measure is related to the working
memory capacity of other measure. More so, the
longer the encoding time, the higher the
correlation between measures. Therefore we fail
to reject this hypothesis.
Results (continued)
2nd Hypothesis: Encoding duration will have an
impact on change location capacity measure – but
not on multiple change detection capacity
measurement
The data suggests that the hypothesis is rejected.
There is a greater group difference between
MCDk 0.1 and MCDk 0.5 than the difference
between CLk 0.1 and CLk 0.5 – meaning
encoding duration for
Encoding Effects on Working Memory Capacity
Correlations* CLk 0.1 CLk 0 .5
MCDk .01 0.32071327 0.37438673
MCDk 0.5 0.27006224 0.4234324
Paired T-tests
(two tailed)
CLk .0.5 MCDk 0.5
CLk 0.1 0.13734663 n/a
MCDk 0.1 n/a 0.62774099
Change Localization Instruction Panels
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
CLk.1
MCDk.1
MCDk.1 v. CLk.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
CLk.5
MCDk.1
MCDk.1 v. CLk.5
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
MCDk.5
MCDk.1
MCDk.1 v. MCDk.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
CLk.1
MCDk.5
MCDk.5 v. CLk.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
CLk.5
MCDk.5
MCDk.5 v. CLk.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
CLk.5
CLk.1
CLk.1 v. CLk.5
Multiple Change Detection Instruction Panels