Scholarlink

<p>Which factors determine whether information temporarily held in working memory (WM) can later be remembered from long-term memory (LTM)? Previous work has shown that retrieving (“testing”) memories from LTM can benefit their future LTM recall. Here, we examined the extent to which a benefit for subsequent LTM may also occur after retrieval from WM, depending on whether the WM contents were retrieved from a prioritized or deprioritized state. In three experiments (<i>n</i> = 383 participants), we combined variants of a visual WM paradigm with a subsequent surprise LTM recall test. We found a LTM benefit of WM testing both for prioritized and deprioritized WM contents, which, interestingly, was stronger for the deprioritized information. This pattern showed similarly across experiments with different priority manipulations. Subsequent LTM benefits generally occurred after WM testing with a recall-like test format (continuous report), but not after simple WM comparisons against a probe. The surprisingly larger LTM benefit for deprioritized WM contents may reflect enhanced encoding of the participants’ own subjective WM report – as opposed to the originally presented sample information – into LTM.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Long-term effects of working memory retrieval from prioritized and deprioritized states

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月28日

查看全文
  • Frieda Born,
  • Bernhard Spitzer

摘要

Which factors determine whether information temporarily held in working memory (WM) can later be remembered from long-term memory (LTM)? Previous work has shown that retrieving (“testing”) memories from LTM can benefit their future LTM recall. Here, we examined the extent to which a benefit for subsequent LTM may also occur after retrieval from WM, depending on whether the WM contents were retrieved from a prioritized or deprioritized state. In three experiments (n = 383 participants), we combined variants of a visual WM paradigm with a subsequent surprise LTM recall test. We found a LTM benefit of WM testing both for prioritized and deprioritized WM contents, which, interestingly, was stronger for the deprioritized information. This pattern showed similarly across experiments with different priority manipulations. Subsequent LTM benefits generally occurred after WM testing with a recall-like test format (continuous report), but not after simple WM comparisons against a probe. The surprisingly larger LTM benefit for deprioritized WM contents may reflect enhanced encoding of the participants’ own subjective WM report – as opposed to the originally presented sample information – into LTM.