A Computational Approach to the N-back Task

Overview

Journal Sci Rep

Specialty Science

Date 2024 Dec 5

PMID 39632901

Authors

Long Ni

Wei Ji Ma

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The N-back task is one of the most popular paradigms for studying the cognitive mechanisms of working memory (WM). The task requires the observer to view a sequence of stimuli and judge whether the current stimulus (probe) matches the one presented N stimuli ago (target). A key phenomenon is that the intervening stimuli (distractors) interfere with task performance. Unfortunately, the classic N-back task uses complex categorical stimuli, making it unfit to quantify the effect of feature similarity on interference strength. Here, we introduce the "analog N-back task", which utilizes stimuli varying continuously in orientation or color. This task variant enables us to measure interference strength on a continuum, providing data suitable for identifying the sources of interference using computational models. In the analog 2-back task, we found that interference increased with feature similarity between the probe and both task-relevant (1-back) and task-irrelevant (3-back) distractors. We next developed and evaluated three main models that each incorporated a Bayesian decision step and differed from an optimal non-interference model in one component only: an early-pooling model, a late-pooling model, and a substitution model. Model comparison suggests that interference emerges late in processing, most likely due to confusion between stimuli during WM retrieval. Our work puts the study of interference in the N-back task on a firmer computational footing and provides a unified framework for examining the sources of interference across domains.

References

Kane M, Conway A, Miura T, Colflesh G . Working memory, attention control, and the N-back task: a question of construct validity. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007; 33(3):615-622. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.615. View

Chatham C, Herd S, Brant A, Hazy T, Miyake A, OReilly R . From an executive network to executive control: a computational model of the n-back task. J Cogn Neurosci. 2011; 23(11):3598-619. PMC: 3269304. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00047. View

Dakin S, Cass J, Greenwood J, Bex P . Probabilistic, positional averaging predicts object-level crowding effects with letter-like stimuli. J Vis. 2010; 10(10):14. PMC: 6686192. DOI: 10.1167/10.10.14. View

Nemes V, Whitaker D, Heron J, McKeefry D . Multiple spatial frequency channels in human visual perceptual memory. Vision Res. 2011; 51(23-24):2331-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.09.003. View

Mallett R, Lorenc E, Lewis-Peacock J . Working Memory Swap Errors Have Identifiable Neural Representations. J Cogn Neurosci. 2022; 34(5):776-786. PMC: 11126154. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_01831. View

Jaeggi S, Buschkuehl M, Perrig W, Meier B . The concurrent validity of the N-back task as a working memory measure. Memory. 2010; 18(4):394-412. DOI: 10.1080/09658211003702171. View

Awh E, Barton B, Vogel E . Visual working memory represents a fixed number of items regardless of complexity. Psychol Sci. 2007; 18(7):622-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01949.x. View

Li K, Kozyrev V, Kyllingsbaek S, Treue S, Ditlevsen S, Bundesen C . Neurons in Primate Visual Cortex Alternate between Responses to Multiple Stimuli in Their Receptive Field. Front Comput Neurosci. 2017; 10:141. PMC: 5187355. DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2016.00141. View

van den Berg R, Roerdink J, Cornelissen F . A neurophysiologically plausible population code model for feature integration explains visual crowding. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010; 6(1):e1000646. PMC: 2799670. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000646. View

10.

Oberauer K, Farrell S, Jarrold C, Lewandowsky S . What limits working memory capacity?. Psychol Bull. 2016; 142(7):758-99. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000046. View

11.

Soveri A, Antfolk J, Karlsson L, Salo B, Laine M . Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017; 24(4):1077-1096. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1217-0. View

12.

Bays P, Catalao R, Husain M . The precision of visual working memory is set by allocation of a shared resource. J Vis. 2009; 9(10):7.1-11. PMC: 3118422. DOI: 10.1167/9.10.7. View

13.

Yu A, Cohen J . Sequential effects: Superstition or rational behavior?. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2015; 21:1873-1880. PMC: 4580342. View

14.

Ester E, Klee D, Awh E . Visual crowding cannot be wholly explained by feature pooling. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013; 40(3):1022-33. PMC: 4038712. DOI: 10.1037/a0035377. View

15.

Xiao J, Huang X . Distributed and Dynamic Neural Encoding of Multiple Motion Directions of Transparently Moving Stimuli in Cortical Area MT. J Neurosci. 2015; 35(49):16180-98. PMC: 4682784. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2175-15.2015. View

16.

Harrison W, Bex P . A Unifying Model of Orientation Crowding in Peripheral Vision. Curr Biol. 2015; 25(24):3213-9. PMC: 4792514. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.10.052. View

17.

Schmiedek F, Li S, Lindenberger U . Interference and facilitation in spatial working memory: age-associated differences in lure effects in the n-back paradigm. Psychol Aging. 2009; 24(1):203-10. DOI: 10.1037/a0014685. View

18.

Nairne J . Remembering over the short-term: the case against the standard model. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001; 53:53-81. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135131. View

19.

McKeefry D, Burton M, Vakrou C . Speed selectivity in visual short term memory for motion. Vision Res. 2007; 47(18):2418-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2007.05.011. View

20.

Busse L, Wade A, Carandini M . Representation of concurrent stimuli by population activity in visual cortex. Neuron. 2010; 64(6):931-42. PMC: 2807406. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.11.004. View