To achieve goal-orientated behaviour, selective attention is often needed to filter out irrelevant information. Past research has shown that working memory (WM) plays a critical role in selective attention, with high WM load leading to more distractor interference than low WM load. However, because WM load is usually manipulated by requiring participants to hold in memory either one or several digits that were presented simultaneously while performing a selective attention task, the extent of attentional focus was not controlled. The present study examined the effect of WM load on distractor inhibition while keeping attentional focus constant by presenting one digit (low load condition) or six digits (high load condition) sequentially. The participants in the high-load condition demonstrated greater distractor interference than the participants in the low-load condition, suggesting that WM load influences distractor inhibition even when the extent of attentional focus was controlled. This result provides converging evidence to Lavie's (1995, 2005) load theory of attention and cognitive control.

To achieve goal-orientated behaviour, selective attention is often needed to filter out irrelevant information. Past research has shown that working memory (WM) plays a critical role in selective attention, with high WM load leading to more distractor interference than low WM load. However, because WM load is usually manipulated by requiring participants to hold in memory either one or several digits that were presented simultaneously while performing a selective attention task, the extent of attentional focus was not controlled. The present study examined the effect of WM load on distractor inhibition while keeping attentional focus constant by presenting one digit (low load condition) or six digits (high load condition) sequentially. The participants in the high-load condition demonstrated greater distractor interference than the participants in the low-load condition, suggesting that WM load influences distractor inhibition even when the extent of attentional focus was controlled. This result provides converging evidence to Lavie's (1995, 2005) load theory of attention and cognitive control.

The purpose of this study was to find if memory load significantly affects the performance of the subjects in the before condition of a before versus after technique experiment. In order to accomplish this the alternatives were presented either before or after the stimulus, with the alternatives and stimuli being either of high-complexity or low-complexity.

Recent studies show that when words are correlated with the colours they are printed in (e.g., MOVE is presented 75% of the time in blue), colour identification is faster when the word is presented in its expected colour (MOVE in blue) than in an unexpected colour (MOVE in green). The present series of experiments explored the possible mechanisms involved in this colour-word contingency learning effect. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the effect was already present after 18 learning trials. During subsequent unlearning, the effect extinguished equally rapidly, suggesting that only a handful of the most recently encountered trials are used to predict responses. Two reanalyses of data from Schmidt, Crump, Cheesman, and Besner (2007) ruled out an account of the effect in terms of stimulus repetitions. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated that participants who carry a memory load do not show a contingency effect, supporting the hypothesis that limited-capacity resources are used to retrieve a small number of trial memories in order to prepare a response. Experiment 4 demonstrated that memory resources are required for both storage and retrieval processes.

Recent studies show that when words are correlated with the colours they are printed in (e.g., MOVE is presented 75% of the time in blue), colour identification is faster when the word is presented in its expected colour (MOVE in blue) than in an unexpected colour (MOVE in green). The present series of experiments explored the possible mechanisms involved in this colour-word contingency learning effect. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the effect was already present after 18 learning trials. During subsequent unlearning, the effect extinguished equally rapidly, suggesting that only a handful of the most recently encountered trials are used to predict responses. Two reanalyses of data from Schmidt, Crump, Cheesman, and Besner (2007) ruled out an account of the effect in terms of stimulus repetitions. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated that participants who carry a memory load do not show a contingency effect, supporting the hypothesis that limited-capacity resources are used to retrieve a small number of trial memories in order to prepare a response. Experiment 4 demonstrated that memory resources are required for both storage and retrieval processes.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal