Sophia Wilhelm (@sophiawilhelm.bsky.social)

🎉 My first first-author paper was just accepted in JEP:HPP! We asked what “active” vs “passive” WM states do - do they protect against interference? Across 4 behavioural experiments we find no reliable protection. Updated preprint here: doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.05.578913 @elkanakyurek.bsky.social

loading . . .

Feature and space-based interference with functionally active and passive items in working memory Functionally active and passive states in working memory have been related to different neural mechanisms. Memoranda in active states might be maintained by persistent neural firing, whereas memoranda in passive states might be maintained through short-term synaptic plasticity. We reasoned that this might make these items differentially susceptible to interference during maintenance, in particular that passively maintained items might be more robust. To test this hypothesis, we gave our participants a working memory task in which one item was prioritised (active) by always probing it first, while the other item was deprioritised (passive) by always probing it second. In two experiments, on half the trials, we presented an interfering task during memory maintenance, in which the stimuli matched either the feature dimension of the memory items (colour or orientation), or their spatial location. Whether the interfering task appeared on a given trial was unpredictable. In a third experiment where participants were given prior knowledge of the interference condition, and finally in a fourth experiment we used a reward-based prioritisation cue. Across experiments, we found that both active and passive memory items were affected by interference to a similar extent, with overall performance being closely matched in all experiments. We further investigated precision and probability of target response parameters from the standard mixture model, which also showed no differences between states. We conclude that active and passive items, although potentially stored in different neuronal states, do not show differential susceptibility to interference. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.05.578913