Abstract
A fundamental limitation in the type of information that can be retained in working memory is identified in this theoretical / review article. The analysis is based on studies of skilled motor performance that were not initially conceived in terms of working memory. Findings from a long history of experimentation involving reaction time (RT) prior to making a brief motor response indicate that although the parameters representing the goal to be achieved by the response can be retained in working memory, the control code that implements timing of action components cannot. This lack of working memory requires that the “timing code” must be compiled immediately prior to the moment that it is to be utilized; it is not possible to be fully ready to respond earlier. This compiling process increases RT and may also underlie both the psychological refractory period effect and the difficulty of generating concurrent motor actions with independent timing. These conclusions extend, but do not conflict with, other models of working memory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data & code availability
No data or code availability is provided, as this is a review article with no new data presented.
Notes
The duration of speech for words may increase when there are more syllables per word even though syllables are internal to the elements for which onsets are timed. Although this increase in duration of the action elements has little, if any, influence on RT it can have other consequences. An example is the “word length effect” in which the number of words that can be recalled in a memory span test is reduced for words that take longer to pronounce. It is questionable whether the span of immediate recall represents working memory (Klapp et al., 1983).
A similar relation was reported by Maslovat et al. (2014, Experiment 2) in which RT increased with the number of key presses when the number was precued (i.e., simple RT) but not when there was no precue (i.e., choice RT). The interval between the participant’s presses was longer in the no-precue condition than in the precue condition. Participants in the no-precue condition may select only the first press (which would be needed regardless of the number of presses eventually required). If it turns out that a second press is required, additional processing occurs, during the interval between taps, thereby lengthening the inter-tap interval without influencing RT. An analogous interpretation seems to fit a surprising finding for task switching. The RT becomes shorter rather than longer when the task is switched (Brown & Koch, 2023). After a task switch participants may postpone some processing to occur during the action rather during RT. This interpretation is consistent with the result that a task shift caused the first action element to be executed more slowly.
Magnuson et al. (2008) reported results that also fit predictions of the Two-Phase Model. Study time increased as a function of the number of elements (presumably due to response selection) and RT also increased with number of elements (presumably due to compiling the timing code).
Alouche et al. (2012) blocked 1 press versus 4 press. The procedure can be regarded as random because the sequence of finger actions in the 4-press condition was randomized.
References
Alouche, S. R., Sant’Anna, G. N., Biagioni, G., & Ribeiro-do-Valle, L. E. (2012). Influence of cueing on the preparation and execution of untrained and trained complex motor responses. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 45(5), 425–435.
Aycock, J. (2003). A brief history of just-in-time. ACM Computing Surveys, 35(2), 97–113.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8). Academic.
Block, R. A., & Zakay, D. (1996). Models of psychological time revisited. In H. Helfrich (Ed.), Time and mind (pp. 171–195). Eogrefe and Huber.
Bortoletto, M., Cook, A., & Cunnington, R. (2011). Motor timing and the preparation for sequential actions. Brain and Cognition, 75(2), 196–204.
Breska, A., & Ivry, R. B. (2016). Taxonomies of timing: Where does the Cerebellum Fit in? Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 8, 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.02.034
Brown, R. M., & Koch, I. (2023). Repetition costs in sequence chunking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02338-7
Carlsen, A. N., & Maslovat, D. (2019). Startle and the StartReact Effect: Physiological mechanisms. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 36(6), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000582
Carlsen, A. N., Maslovat, D., & Franks, I. M. (2012). Preparation for voluntary movement in healthy and clinical populations: Evidence from startle. Clinical Neurophysiology, 123(1), 21–33.
Churchland, M. M. (2006). Neural variability in Premotor Cortex provides a signature of Motor Preparation. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(14), 3697–3712. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.3762-05.2006
Churchland, M. M., Cunningham, J. P., Kaufman, M. T., Ryu, S. I., & Shenoy, K. V. (2010). Cortical preparatory activity: Representation of movement or first cog in a dynamical machine? Neuron, 68(3), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.015
Cowan, N. (2017). The many faces of working memory and short-term storage. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(4), 1158–1170. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1191-6
Cui, S. Z., Li, E. Z., Zang, Y. F., Weng, X. C., Ivry, R., & Wang, J. J. (2000). Both sides of human cerebellum involved in preparation and execution of sequential movements. Neuroreport, 11(17), 3849–3853.
Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(3), 199–210.
Franz, E. A., Eliassen, J. C., Ivry, R. B., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (1996). Dissociation of spatial and temporal coupling in the Bimanual movements of Callosotomy patients. Psychological Science, 7(5), 306–310.
Haque, Z. Z., Samandra, R., & Mansouri, F. A. (2021). Neural substrate and underlying mechanisms of working memory: Insights from brain stimulation studies. Journal of Neurophysiology, 125(6), 2038–2053. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00041.2021
Henry, F., & Rogers, D. (1960). Increased response latency for complicated movements and a memory drum theory of neuromotor reaction. Research Quarterly of the American Association for Health Physical Education and Recreation, 31(3), 448–458.
Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11–26.
Hillman, H., Botthof, T., Forrence, A. D., & McDougle, S. D. (2024). Dissociable codes in Motor Working Memory. Psychological Science, 09567976231221756. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231221756
Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007
Ivry, R. B., & Hazeltine, E. (1999). Subcortical locus of temporal coupling in the bimanual movements of a callosotomy patient. Human Movement Science, 18, 345–375.
Ivry, R. B., & Keele, S. W. (1989). Timing functions of the cerebellum. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1(2), 136–152.
Jagacinski, R. J., Marshburn, E., Klapp, S. T., & Jones, M. R. (1988). Tests of parallel versus integrated structure in polyrhythmic tap**. Journal of Motor Behavior, 20(4), 416–442.
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. Holt.
Keele, S. W. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 387–403.
Ketelaars, M. A. C., Khan, M. A., & Franks, I. M. (1999). Dual-task interference as an indicator of on-line programming in simple movement sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1302–1315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.5.1302
Khalighinejad, N., Schurger, A., Desantis, A., Zmigrod, L., & Haggard, P. (2018). Precursor processes of human self-initiated action. Neuroimage, 165, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.09.057
Khan, M. A., Lawrence, G., Buckolz, E., & Franks, I. (2006). Programming strategies for rapid aiming movements under simple and choice reaction time conditions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(3), 524–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000809
Khan, M. A., Mourton, S., Buckolz, E., & Franks, I. (2008). The influence of advance information on the response complexity effect in manual aiming movements. Acta Psychologica, 127(1), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.04.001
Khan, M. A., Kurniawan, A., Khan, M. E., Khan, M. C., Smith, K. L., Benson, S., Carlsen, S., A. N., & Lawrence, G. P. (2023). The influence of foreperiod duration on the preparation and control of sequential aiming movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 17470218231162617. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231162617
Klapp, S. T. (2003). Reaction time analysis of two types of motor preparation for speech articulation: Action as a sequence of chunks. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35(2), 135–150.
Klapp, S. T., & Jagacinski, R. J. (2011). Gestalt principles in the control of motor action. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 443–462.
Klapp, S. T., & Maslovat, D. (2020). Preparation of action timing cannot be completed until immediately prior to initiation of the response to be controlled. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 27(5), 821–832. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01740-9
Klapp, S. T., Marshburn, E. A., & Lester, P. T. (1983). Short term memory does not involve the working memory of information processing: The demise of a common assumption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 240–264.
Klapp, S. T., Nelson, J. M., & Jagacinski, R. J. (1998). Can people tap concurrent bimanual rhythms independently? Journal of Motor Behavior, 30(4), 301–322.
Klapp, S. T., Maslovat, D., & Jagacinski, R. J. (2019). The bottleneck of the psychological refractory period effect involves timing of response initiation rather than response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(1), 29–47. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1498-6
Logie, R. H., & Cowan, N. (2015). Perspectives on working memory: Introduction to the special issue. Memory & Cognition, 43(3), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0510-x
Lu, X., & Ashe, J. (2005). Anticipatory activity in primary motor cortex codes memorized movement sequences. Neuron, 45(6), 967–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.01.036
Magnuson, C. E., Robin, D. A., & Wright, D. L. (2008). Motor programming when sequencing multiple elements of the same duration. Journal of Motor Behavior, 40(6), 532–544.
Maslovat, D., & Klapp, S. T. (2024). Trouble doing two differently timed actions at once: What is the problem? Psychological Review, 131(1), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000383
Maslovat, D., Chua, R., Spencer, H. C., Forgaard, C. J., Carlsen, A. N., & Franks, I. M. (2013). Evidence for a response preparation bottleneck during dual-task performance: Effect of a startling acoustic stimulus on the psychological refractory period. Acta Psychologica, 144(3), 481–487.
Maslovat, D., Klapp, S. T., Jagacinski, R. J., & Franks, I. M. (2014). Control of response timing occurs during the simple reaction time interval but on-line for choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 2005–2021.
Maslovat, D., Chua, R., Carlsen, A. N., May, C., Forgaard, C. J., & Franks, I. M. (2015). A startling acoustic stimulus interferes with upcoming motor preparation: Evidence for a startle refractory period. Acta Psychologica, 158, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.04.003
Maslovat, D., Chua, R., Klapp, S. T., & Franks, I. M. (2016). Independent planning of timing and sequencing for complex motor movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 1158–1172. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000220
Maslovat, D., Chua, R., Klapp, S. T., & Franks, I. M. (2018). Preparation of timing structure involves two independent sub-processes. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 82, 981–996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0877-3
Maslovat, D., Klapp, S. T., Forgaard, C. J., Chua, R., & Franks, I. M. (2019). The effect of response complexity on simple reaction time occurs even with a highly predictable imperative stimulus. Neuroscience Letters, 704, 62–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2019.03.056
McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 2005–2021.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1956). The logic theory machine–A complex information processing system. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1956.1056797
Pashler, H. (1993). Doing two things at the same time. American Scientist, 81, 48–55.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.
Peters, M. (1977). Simultaneous performance of two motor activities: The factor of timing. Neuropsychologia, 15(3), 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(77)90099-9
Ricker, K. L., Elliott, D., Lyons, J., Gauldie, D., Chua, R., & Byblow, W. (1999). The utilization of visual information in the control of rapid sequential aiming movements. Acta Psychologica, 103(1–2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00026-8
Riehle, A., & Requin, J. (1989). Monkey primary motor and premotor cortex: Single-cell activity related to prior information about direction and extent of an intended movement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 61(3), 534–549. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1989.61.3.534
Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(4), 444–474.
Rothwell, J., Antal, A., Burke, D., Carlsen, A., Georgiev, D., Jahanshahi, M., Sternad, D., Valls-Solé, J., & Ziemann, U. (2021). Central nervous system physiology. Clinical Neurophysiology, 132(12), 3043–3083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2021.09.013
Scimeca, J. M., Kiyonaga, A., & D’Esposito, M. (2018). Reaffirming the sensory recruitment account of Working Memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 190–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.12.007
Shen, M., Gao, Z., Ding, X., Zhou, B., & Huang, X. (2014). Holding biological motion information in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1332–1345. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036839
Shin, Y. K., & Proctor, R. W. (2018). Evidence for distinct steps in response preparation from a delayed response paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 191, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.08.010
Smith, M. C. (1967). Theories of the psychological refractory period. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 202–221.
Spencer, R. M., Zelaznik, H. N., Diedrichsen, J., & Ivry, R. B. (2003). Disrupted timing of discontinuous but not continuous movements by cerebellar lesions. Science, 300(5624), 1437–1439. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1083661
Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R. L., & Wright, C. E. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparisons of speech and typewriting. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 117–152). Academic.
Tanji, J., & Evarts, E. V. (1976). Anticipatory activity of motor cortex neurons in relation to direction of an intended movement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 39(5), 1062–1068. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1976.39.5.1062
Tuller, B., & Kelso, J. A. (1989). Environmentally-specified patterns of movement coordination in normal and split-brain subjects. Experimental Brain Research, 75(2), 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00247936
Welford, A. T. (1952). The psychological refractory period and the timing of high speed performance—A review and theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2–19.
Wood, J. N. (2007). Visual working memory for observed actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 639–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.639
Zylberberg, J., & Strowbridge, B. W. (2017). Mechanisms of persistent activity in cortical circuits: Possible neural substrates for working memory. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 40, 603–627. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-070815-014006
Funding
The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.T.K and D.M. contributed to drafting, reviewing, and finalizing the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate / publication
No approval of research ethics committees was required, as this is a review article with no new data presented.
Competing interests
The authors declare they have no financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Klapp, S.T., Maslovat, D. Working memory involvement in action planning does not include timing initiation structure. Psychological Research (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01986-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01986-1