Impact of motor error processing on performance on a working memory task: effect of modulating cognitive load in high and low span groups
Fiche du document
- ISIDORE Id: 10670/1.71449d...
- hal: hal-05083435
- doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105113
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105113
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ , info:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess
Mots-clés
Working memory Error Cognitive load Error Related Impairment of Active Working Memory Conflict tasksSujets proches
Working memory Immediate memoryCiter ce document
Emilien Brochet et al., « Impact of motor error processing on performance on a working memory task: effect of modulating cognitive load in high and low span groups », HAL SHS (Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société), ID : 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105113
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
Making a motor error, hitting the wrong key for example in responding to a stimulus, impacts perceptual, motor, and cognitive processes by implying a variation in performance and response time on the next trial (Post Error Slowing, Dutilh et al., 2012; Wessel, 2018). Wessel et al. (2022) showed that an error produced on a flanker-type task had a negative impact on a working memory span recognition. This effect is called ERIAM (Error Related Impairment of Active Working Memory) and consists of degradation of memory span following the production of an error on a conflict task concurrent to a memory task. In their study, the ERIAM effect is more pronounced in Low Span individuals. This suggests that these individuals have less stable Working Memory representations and are more likely to be impacted by an error. The presented study replicates the ERIAM protocol of Wessel et al. ( 2022) by adding variation of cognitive load. In addition, span recognition task is modified with a recall task. Results show a replication of ERIAM effect in our sample. Moreover, ERIAM effect is only significant in lowspan group in the moderate cognitive load condition and in highspan group in the increased load condition. In line with Lavie's load theory (Lavie et al., 2004), we explain these results by the fact that High and Low Span groups do not process cognitive load increase in the same way.☆ Data from this study can be accessed at https://osf.io/u6pyk/.
