Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11340866

The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory.

M Wilson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The highly influential Baddeley and Hitch model of working memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; see also Baddeley, 1986) posited analogical forms of representation that can be broadly characterized as sensorimotor, both for verbal and for visuospatial material. However, difficulties with the model of verbal working memory in particular have led investigators to develop alternative models that avoid appealing either to sensory coding or to motoric coding, or to both. This paper examines the evidence for sensorimotor coding in working memory, including evidence from neuropsychology and from sign language research, as well as from standard working memory paradigms, and concludes that only a sensorimotor model can accommodate the broad range of effects that characterize verbal working memory. In addition, several findings that have been considered to speak against sensorimotor involvement are reexamined and are argued to be in fact compatible with sensorimotor coding. These conclusions have broad implications, in that they support the emerging theoretical viewpoint of embodied cognition.

Explore related subjects

AttentionHumansMental RecallPractice, PsychologicalPsychomotor PerformanceVerbal LearningJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Wilson. 2001. The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory.. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196138

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Enhanced tactile performance at the destination of an upcoming saccade.

Previous work has demonstrated that upcoming saccades influence visual and auditory performance even for stimuli presented before the saccade is executed. These studies suggest a close relationship between saccade generation and visual/auditory attention. Furthermore, they provide support for Rizzolatti et al.'s premotor model of attention, which suggests that the same circuits involved in motor programming are also responsible for shifts in covert orienting (shifting attention without moving the eyes or changing posture). In a series of experiments, we demonstrate that saccade programming also affects tactile perception. Participants made speeded saccades to the left and right side as well as tactile discriminations of up versus down. The first experiment demonstrates that participants were reliably faster at responding to tactile stimuli near the location of upcoming saccades. In our second experiment, we had the subjects cross their hands and demonstrated that the effect occurs in visual space (rather than the early representations of touch). In our third experiment, the tactile events usually occurred on the opposite side of upcoming eye movement. We found that the benefit at the saccade target location vanished, suggesting that this shift is not obligatory but that it may be vetoed on the basis of expectation.

Attention↗
PubMed2002

Signals invisible to the collicular and magnocellular pathways can capture visual attention.

The retinal projection to the superior colliculus is thought to be important both for stimulus-driven eye movements and for the involuntary capture of attention. It has further been argued that eye-movement planning and attentional orienting share common neural mechanisms. Electrophysiological studies have shown that the superior colliculus receives no direct projections from short-wave-sensitive cones (S cones), and, consistent with this, we found that irrelevant peripheral stimuli visible only to S cones did not produce the saccadic distractor effect produced by luminance stimuli. However, when involuntary orienting was tested in a Posner cueing task, the same S-cone stimuli had normal attentional effects, in that they accelerated or delayed responses to subsequent targets. We conclude that involuntary attentional shifts do not require signals in the direct collicular pathway, or indeed the magnocellular pathway, as our S-cone stimuli were invisible to this channel also.

Attention↗
PubMed2002

Control of visuotemporal attention by inferior parietal and superior temporal cortex.

The human cortical visual system is organized into major pathways: a dorsal stream projecting to the superior parietal lobe (SPL), considered to be critical for visuospatial perception or on-line control of visually guided movements, and a ventral stream leading to the inferotemporal cortex, mediating object perception. Between these structures lies a large region, consisting of the inferior parietal lobe (IPL) and superior temporal gyrus (STG), the function of which is controversial. Lesions here can lead to spatial neglect, a condition associated with abnormal visuospatial perception as well as impaired visually guided movements, suggesting that the IPL+STG may have largely a "dorsal" role. Here, we use a nonspatial task to examine the deployment of visuotemporal attention in focal lesion patients, with or without spatial neglect. We show that, regardless of the presence of neglect, damage to the IPL+STG leads to a more prolonged deployment of visuotemporal attention compared to lesions of the SPL. Our findings suggest that the human IPL+STG makes an important contribution to nonspatial perception, and this is consistent with a role that is neither strictly "dorsal" nor "ventral". We propose instead that the IPL+STG has a top-down control role, contributing to the functions of both dorsal and ventral visual systems.

Attention↗