Is the n-back task a measure of unstructured working memory capacity? Towards understanding its connection to other working memory tasks.

Working memory is fundamental to human cognitive functioning, and it is often measured with the n-back task. However, it is not clear whether the n-back task is a valid measure of working memory. Importantly, previous studies have found poor correlations with measures of complex span, whereas a recent study (Frost et al., 2019) showed that n-back performance was correlated with a transsaccadic memory task but dissociated from performance on the change detection task, a well-accepted measure of working memory capacity. To test whether capacity is involved in the n-back task we correlated a spatial version of the test with different versions of the change detection task. Experiment 1 introduced perceptual and cognitive disruptions to the change detection task. This impacted task performance, however, all versions of the change detection task remained highly correlated with one another whereas there was no significant correlation with the n-back task. Experiment 2 removed spatial and non-spatial context from the change detection task. This produced a correlation with n-back. Our results indicate that the n-back task is supported by faculties similar to those that support change detection, but that this commonality is hidden when contextual information is available to be exploited in a change detection task such that structured representations can form. We suggest that n-back might be a valid measure of working memory, and that the ability to exploit contextual information is an important faculty captured by some versions of the change detection task.

Working memory in action: inspecting the systematic and unsystematic errors of spatial memory across saccades.

Our ability to interact with the world depends on memory buffers that flexibly store and process information for short periods of time. Current working memory research, however, mainly uses tasks that avoid eye movements, whereas in daily life we need to remember information across saccades. Because saccades disrupt perception and attention, the brain might use special transsaccadic memory systems. Therefore, to compare working memory systems between and across saccades, the current study devised transsaccadic memory tasks that evaluated the influence of memory load on several kinds of systematic and unsystematic spatial errors, and tested whether these measures predicted performance in more established working memory paradigms. Experiment 1 used a line intersection task that had people integrate lines shown before and after saccades, and it administered a 2-back task. Experiments 2 and 3 asked people to point at one of several locations within a memory array flashed before an eye movement, and we tested change detection and 2-back performance. We found that unsystematic transsaccadic errors increased with memory load and were correlated with 2-back performance. Systematic errors produced similar results, although effects varied as a function of the geometric layout of the memory arrays. Surprisingly, transsaccadic errors did not predict change detection performance despite the latter being a widely accepted measure of working memory capacity. Our results suggest that working memory systems between and across saccades share, in part, similar neural resources. Nevertheless, our data highlight the importance of investigating working memory across saccades.

Evidence for a common mechanism of spatial attention and visual awareness: Towards construct validity of pseudoneglect.

Present knowledge of attention and awareness centres on deficits in patients with right brain damage who show severe forms of inattention to the left, called spatial neglect. Yet the functions that are lost in neglect are poorly understood. In healthy people, they might produce "pseudoneglect"-subtle biases to the left found in various tests that could complement the leftward deficits in neglect. But pseudoneglect measures are poorly correlated. Thus, it is unclear whether they reflect anything but distinct surface features of the tests. To probe for a common mechanism, here we asked whether visual noise, known to increase leftward biases in the grating-scales task, has comparable effects on other measures of pseudoneglect. We measured biases using three perceptual tasks that require judgments about size (landmark task), luminance (greyscales task) and spatial frequency (grating-scales task), as well as two visual search tasks that permitted serial and parallel search or parallel search alone. In each task, we randomly selected pixels of the stimuli and set them to random luminance values, much like a poor TV signal. We found that participants biased their perceptual judgments more to the left with increasing levels of noise, regardless of task. Also, noise amplified the difference between long and short lines in the landmark task. In contrast, biases during visual searches were not influenced by noise. Our data provide crucial evidence that different measures of perceptual pseudoneglect, but not exploratory pseudoneglect, share a common mechanism. It can be speculated that this common mechanism feeds into specific, right-dominant processes of global awareness involved in the integration of visual information across the two hemispheres.