The Impact of Movement Fluency, Complexity and Diverted Attention on Working Memory Processes
-
1
Southern Cross University, Psychology, Australia
Working Memory (WM) has been extensively studied in relation to its components, processes and tasks that cause WM capacity to become overloaded. Previous research established dual task efficiency is unaffected when stimuli are processed in different sub systems (Baddeley, 2012; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). The current study aims to identify if a drawing task independent of a verbal component will interfere with the recall of words. Participants completed three serial recall tasks, where they listened to word lists or listened to word lists while producing discrete (star) and continual (circle) movements. It was hypothesised that participants would recall fewer words in the discrete and continual movement conditions compared to the listening condition, and fewer words in the discrete condition compared to the continual condition. The results showed the continual condition interfered with recall significantly more than the listening condition. An analysis of simple effects revealed at what serial positions the conditions differed. The results indicate that continual movement independent of a phonological component reduces WM performance. The role of available working memory capacity, dual task efficiency, complexity and attention in relation to WM performance are discussed.
Keywords:
Attention,
Dual task,
working memory,
Complexity,
fluency,
Fine motor movement,
Available Working Memory Capacity
Conference:
XII International Conference on Cognitive Neuroscience (ICON-XII), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 27 Jul - 31 Jul, 2014.
Presentation Type:
Poster
Topic:
Memory and Learning
Citation:
Tindle
R and
Longstaff
M
(2015). The Impact of Movement Fluency, Complexity and Diverted Attention on Working Memory Processes.
Conference Abstract:
XII International Conference on Cognitive Neuroscience (ICON-XII).
doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2015.217.00329
Copyright:
The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers.
They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.
The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.
Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.
For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.
Received:
19 Feb 2015;
Published Online:
24 Apr 2015.
*
Correspondence:
Mr. Richard Tindle, Southern Cross University, Psychology, Coffs Harbour, Australia, Richard.Tindle@outlook.com
Dr. Mitchell Longstaff, Southern Cross University, Psychology, Coffs Harbour, Australia, Mitchell.Longstaff@scu.edu.au