Scholarlink

<p>The precision with which verbal information is represented in working memory (WM) is a debated question. Some studies suggest that verbal WM precision is limited to abstract phonological levels of representation while other studies, using specifically designed paradigms, indicate that information can reach phonetic-level precision. The present study investigated at which linguistic level verbal WM operates by default, by probing memory for phonological versus phonetic information in a non-word WM paradigm. In three experiments, we presented non-word lists followed by a non-word probe, with negative probes differing from targets by a single phoneme. This phoneme was either a phonetic variant of the target (e.g., /t/ -&#xa0;/t*/), a phonologically close phoneme (e.g., /t/ – /d/) or a phonologically distant phoneme (e.g., /t/ – /v/). In the three experiments, we observed reliable rejection of negative probes differing by a phonologically distant phoneme, while rejection of negative probes differing by either a phonologically close phoneme or a phonetic variant was much less robust. This study shows that verbal WM preferentially involves phonological levels of representation, and with limited precision at this level.</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

What is the level of precision of phonological representations in working memory?

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月13日

查看全文
  • Marion Bouffier,
  • Robin Remouchamps,
  • Steve Majerus

摘要

The precision with which verbal information is represented in working memory (WM) is a debated question. Some studies suggest that verbal WM precision is limited to abstract phonological levels of representation while other studies, using specifically designed paradigms, indicate that information can reach phonetic-level precision. The present study investigated at which linguistic level verbal WM operates by default, by probing memory for phonological versus phonetic information in a non-word WM paradigm. In three experiments, we presented non-word lists followed by a non-word probe, with negative probes differing from targets by a single phoneme. This phoneme was either a phonetic variant of the target (e.g., /t/ - /t*/), a phonologically close phoneme (e.g., /t/ – /d/) or a phonologically distant phoneme (e.g., /t/ – /v/). In the three experiments, we observed reliable rejection of negative probes differing by a phonologically distant phoneme, while rejection of negative probes differing by either a phonologically close phoneme or a phonetic variant was much less robust. This study shows that verbal WM preferentially involves phonological levels of representation, and with limited precision at this level.