SBNeC 2010
Resumo:F.018


Prêmio
F.018Stimulus-Response binding induced by verbal instructions may occur independently of the phonological loop
Autores:Priscila Covre (UNIFESP - Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo) ; Orlando Francisco Amodeo Bueno (UNIFESP - Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo) ; Graham J Hitch (UOY - University of York) ; Alan David Baddeley (UOY - University of York)

Resumo

Rationale: When we follow instructions about a complex task, we seem to set up and then run a "mini-program" in our heads. Little is known about how this is done or when it breaks down. Some recent studies have shown that once we listen to a new instruction, a temporary link between instructed stimulus and response features is created; it is still unknown whether the phonological loop component of working memory plays a role in the creation of these stimulus-response (S-R) bindings. Objective: The experiment that follows investigates the role of the phonological loop when dealing with new and unimplemented instructions. Methods: Forty young adults (mean age=21 years old) were randomly assigned to one of two groups (N=20 for each), “supp” and “no-supp”, which differed in terms of the performance or not of an articulatory suppression task (saying ‘da da da’) concurrent to the main task. An ABBA paradigm, which is composed by task A and task B, with task B embedded in task A, was used as the main task. Task A consisted of the instruction of new S-R mappings at each trial and Task B was a logically independent task. Feature overlapping between instructions given on task A and stimuli used in task B was manipulated; so that trials could be neutral (no overlapping), compatible or incompatible. In compatible trials the position of the stimuli presented was compatible to the instruction given in task A and, in incompatible trials, they were in the opposite position. It was hypothesized that if S-R mappings were bound together as soon as instruction was given, encountering the instructed letters in an incompatible position when performing task B should lead to an increased reaction time in comparison to compatible or neutral trials. Also, if phonological rehearsal is not needed in order to maintain the S-R bindings formed, there should be no effect of the concurrent articulatory suppression task (“supp” group). Results: Reaction time on Task B was analyzed considering trial type (neutral, compatible, incompatible) as within-measure and group (“supp”, “no supp”) as between-factor. There was no interaction and no group effect. Trial type effect was significant (p<0.05) and showed that, for both groups, reaction time for incompatible trials (means for “supp”=812 ms and “no-supp”=827) was higher than for compatible trials (“supp”=794; “no-supp”=800) and both were higher than neutral trials (“supp”=728; “no-supp”=734). Discussion: Our results replicate previous findings showing that new and unimplemented verbal instructions can suffice to create temporary S-R bindings and in addition show that these binding mechanisms might be independent from the phonological loop. Conclusions: Thus when preparing to respond to a complex set of verbal instructions our evidence suggests we do indeed set up a mini-program in working memory. Perhaps more surprisingly, this process does not seem to depend on using the phonological loop component of working memory to subvocalise the instructions.


Palavras-chave:  instruction, working memory, binding, phonological loop