New study proves the brain has three layers of working memory

Mar 09, 2011

Researchers from Rice University and Georgia Institute of Technology have found support for the theory that the brain has three concentric layers of working memory where it stores readily available items. Memory researchers have long debated whether there are two or three layers and what the capacity and function of each layer is.

In a paper in the March issue of the Journal of Cognitive Psychology, researchers found that short-term is made up of three areas: a core focusing on one active item, a surrounding area holding at least three more active items, and a wider region containing passive items that have been tagged for later retrieval or "put on the back burner." But more importantly, they found that the core region, called the focus of attention, has three roles -- not two as proposed by previous researchers. First, this core focus directs attention to the correct item, which is affected by predictability of input pattern. Then it retrieves the item and subsequently, when needed, updates it.

The researchers, Chandramallika Basak of Rice University and Paul Verhaeghen of Georgia Tech, used simple memory tasks involving colors and shapes on a computer screen to determine the three distinct layers of memory. They also determined the roles of attention focus by exploring the process of switching items in and out of the focus of attention.

In their previous studies, Basak and Verhaeghen discovered that response time for switching in and out of the core focus is not affected by the number of items stored when the items are input in a predictable pattern.

In this study of 49 participants across two experiments, the researchers found that when no pattern exists, all participants increased their response time by an average of 240 milliseconds per item as more items are stored. This implies that the area outside the focus has to be searched when there is no pattern, even before the item can be retrieved.

However, as evidenced by the previous studies, when participants were given 10 hours of practice in a memory task with a predictable pattern, all of them could enhance the focus of attention to store four items in the focus core. But this focus does not expand when the memory task has no pattern.

"Predictability can free up resources so a person can effectively multitask," said Basak, assistant professor of psychology at Rice and lead author of the study. "When you do the same sequence over and over again, your memory can be partially automatized so you have the ability to do another task concurrently."

This comes naturally, Basak said. For instance, as you drive the usual route to your regular grocery store, you might also be thinking about what to fix for dinner and making a grocery list. That same secondary task -- the grocery list -- becomes more of a challenge when driving to a different grocery store using an unfamiliar route.

Another facet of the study showed that the third level of memory -- the region containing passive items -- is not only separate from the other two areas of active storage but has a firewall between them. The number of passive items does not influence either response time or accuracy for recalling active items.

Explore further: 'Experiential products' provide same happiness boost as experiences, study finds

Related Stories

Short-term memory ability may predict IQ

Jul 12, 2007

U.S. psychologists have found people with high IQs might be able to remember more than the four objects an average person can store in short-term memory.

Clarity in short-term memory shows no link with IQ

Nov 29, 2010

One person correctly remembers four of eight items just seen but is fuzzy on details. Another person recalls only two of the items but with amazingly precise clarity. So what ability translates to higher IQ?

MU psychologists demonstrate simplicity of working memory

Apr 23, 2008

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but humans may have even less to work with than previously thought. University of Missouri researchers found that the average person can keep just three or four things in their “working ...

Grocery Retailers Need Not Fear 'Cherry Pickers'

Sep 19, 2007

"Extreme cherry pickers," grocery shoppers who buy only sale items and nothing else, do not harm retailer profits significantly as generally is believed, according to a forthcoming study in the Journal of ...

Pricing practices cost consumers

Apr 12, 2007

You may be paying more for that can of soup or loaf of bread, depending on whether they have an individual price sticker or not. A new study from the DeGroote School of Business finds grocery items individually ...

In Short-Term Memory, Faster Is Not Better, Study Shows

Nov 07, 2005

For years, researchers have said that the short-term memory increases as children mature, which is important because the memory serves as an index for intelligence and mental maturation. It has been proposed that a person's ...

Recommended for you

When it hurts to think we were made for each other

14 hours ago

Aristotle said, "Love is composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies." Poetic as it is, thinking that you and your partner were made in heaven for each other can hurt your relationship, says a new study.

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Dug
1 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2011
Boy, this seems pretty thin on the reproducible science side. Concentric layers? Why not just three separate areas? How would you prove there are layers, compared different areas?
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2011
They've missed one form of working memory entirely: Orientation. At any given moment you know where you are, how you got there and what you intended to do next. This memory is not available for storing conscious items or, if it was, you'd become disorientated when doing a word/number retention test ie you'd forget where you were, why you were there, how you got there and what you intended to do next...they tested only an iconic version of the STS ie one that can store abstract items to be used in a current activity. Yet the example given in the text, of driving to the supermarket, involves the less volatile and slightly longer term orientation form of STS. Oh, dear, testing arms to understand legs...???
CWonPhysOrg
not rated yet Mar 10, 2011
Despite concerns about the accuracy of the detail, this caused a lightbulb experience for me.

Years ago, an ex-boss and I had ongoing exchanges about whether or not the human brain could multi-task. As the computer guy, I'd constantly point out that he (the boss) was not multi-tasking, rather, delaying one activity until he completed another. (In a work situation, "predictability", is non-existent).

On the other hand, I've also had experiences that smacked of multi-tasking. For example, phone conversations while simultaneously dealing with a different problem on the computer.

This work seems to describe those real-world examples perfectly. Proof? Maybe not, but suspiciously descriptive.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2011
I've also had experiences that smacked of multi-tasking. For example, phone conversations while simultaneously dealing with a different problem on the computer.
As a computer guy, you could explain this also with time slice scheduling.
CWonPhysOrg
not rated yet Mar 11, 2011
Yes, I'm aware of time-slicing. It was with that in mind that when I made my comment. Certainly that may be what's happening, but let me give you an example.

Have you ever held a conversation with one person while, mentally, following another conversation between two other people simultaneously? I've had that experience. Certainly, it could be time-slicing (but with extremely rapid slices). Then again, it may be multi-tasking.

Whatever the truth is, this article struck a chord with me.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 13, 2011
Have you ever held a conversation with one person while, mentally, following another conversation between two other people simultaneously? I've had that experience. Certainly, it could be time-slicing (but with extremely rapid slices). Then again, it may be multi-tasking.
Well, the brain is cycle based, similar to computing. Even at the deepest level in computer systems, clock cycles are rigid and defined for individual tasks. The smaller a slice of time you examine, the easier it is to break down a functional process.

Basically, we're as digital as transistors are.