Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Consistent Failure to Produce a Cognitive Load Effect in Visual Working Memory Using a Standard Dual-Task Procedure Cover

Consistent Failure to Produce a Cognitive Load Effect in Visual Working Memory Using a Standard Dual-Task Procedure

Open Access
|Jul 2020

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Performance Metrics across Experiments and Inclusion Criteria.

Participant Inclusion Criteria.8 secondary task accuracy or better.8 secondary task accuracy or betterMust have a high accuracy* trial in all conditionsAll participants that completed the study
Trial Inclusion CriteriaHigh accuracy* trials onlyAll trialsHigh accuracy* trials onlyAll trials
Experiment 1a (continuous memoranda + tone task)
    Participant N38384344
    Effect Size (d)0.110.420.070.46
    Bayes Factor (H10)0.330.800.123.94
Experiment 1b (continuous memoranda + parity task)
    Participant N30304852
    Effect Size (d)0.130.500.120.43
    Bayes Factor (H10)0.121.050.083.89
Experiment 2a (canonical memoranda + tone task)
    Participant N14142230
    Effect Size (d)–0.340.190.010.28
    Bayes Factor (H10)0.310.140.070.19
Experiment 2b (canonical memoranda + parity task)
    Participant N24243753
    Effect Size (d)0.240.480.240.47
    Bayes Factor (H10)0.240.700.2914.82

[i] Note: Effect sizes and Bayes factors pertain to the effect of Cognitive Load.

* A high accuracy trial is one with perfect performance on the secondary task.

Figure 1

An example of a single experimental trial in Experiment 1.

Figure 2

Mean response error in degrees of angle by cognitive load condition (number of digits/6s retention interval) observed in Experiment 1a (continuous memoranda + tone task; panel a) and Experiment 1b (continuous memoranda + parity task; panel b) Error bars represent standard error of the mean. The blue line shows the linear regression of mean response error on cognitive load. Note that the y-axis is compressed in panel a. relative to panel b. due to Experiment 1a having one half the total stimulus range compared to Experiment 1b.

Figure 3

An example of a response probe in Experiment 2b. The black dots show the eight possible dot locations for canonical memory items. Each memory item only contained a single dot.

Figure 4

Mean response error in degrees of angle by cognitive load condition (number of digits/6s retention interval) observed in Experiment 2a (canonical memoranda + tone task; panel a) and experiment 2b (canonical memoranda + parity task; panel b) Error bars represent standard error of the mean. The blue lines show the linear regression of mean response error on cognitive load.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.108 | Journal eISSN: 2514-4820
Language: English
Submitted on: Apr 17, 2020
Accepted on: Jun 23, 2020
Published on: Jul 10, 2020
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2020 Timothy J. Ricker, Evie Vergauwe, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.