Abstract:Neural network models of memory are notorious for catastrophic interference: Old items are forgotten as new items are memorized (French, 1999; McCloskey & Cohen, 1989). While working memory (WM) in human adults shows severe capacity limitations, these capacity limitations do not reflect neural network style catastrophic interference. However, our ability to quickly apprehend the numerosity of small sets of objects (i.e., subitizing) does show catastrophic capacity limitations, and this subitizing capacity and WM might reflect a common capacity. Accordingly, computational investigations (Knops, Piazza, Sengupta, Eger & Melcher, 2014; Sengupta, Surampudi & Melcher, 2014) suggest that mutual inhibition among neurons can explain both kinds of capacity limitations as well as why our ability to estimate the numerosity of larger sets is limited according to a Weber ratio signature. Based on simulations with a saliency map-like network and mathematical proofs, we provide three results. First, mutual inhibition among neurons leads to catastrophic interference when items are presented simultaneously. The network can remember a limited number of items, but when more items are presented, the network forgets all of them. Second, if memory items are presented sequentially rather than simultaneously, the network remembers the most recent items rather than forgetting all of them. Hence, the tendency in WM tasks to sequentially attend even to simultaneously presented items might not only reflect attentional limitations, but also an adaptive strategy to avoid catastrophic interference. Third, the mean activation level in the network can be used to estimate the number of items in small sets, but it does not accurately reflect the number of items in larger sets. Rather, we suggest that the Weber ratio signature of large number discrimination emerges naturally from the interaction between the limited precision of a numeric estimation system and a multiplicative gain control mechanism.

Precursors to Chunking Vanish as Working Memory Capacity Is Exceeded

A Precise Measure of Working Memory Reveals Subjects Difficulties Managing Limited Capacity

Chunk limits and length limits in immediate recall: a reconciliation

Behind the Magical Numbers: Hierarchical Chunking and the Human Working Memory Capacity.

Hierarchical Working Memory and a New Magic Number

Sequential Presentation Protects Working Memory From Catastrophic Interference

Proactive interference of visual working memory chunks implicates long-term memory

Chunking in working memory via content-free labels

Chunking, boosting, or offloading? Using serial position to investigate long-term memory's enhancement of verbal working memory performance

Developmental Abilities to Form Chunks in Immediate Memory and Its Non-Relationship to Span Development

What You See Is What You Remember: Visual Chunking by Temporal Integration Enhances Working Memory

First direct evidence of two stages in free recall and three corresponding estimates of working memory capacity

With development, list recall includes more chunks, not just larger ones.

Chunking in Visual Working Memory: Are Visual Features of Real-World Objects Stored in Chunks?

Adaptive chunking improves effective working memory capacity in a prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia circuit

Preliminary Evidence -- Diagnosed Alzheimer's Disease But Not MCI Affects Working Memory Capacity - 0.7 of 2.7 Memory Slots is Lost

Behavioral signatures of the rapid recruitment of long-term memory to overcome working memory capacity limits

Partial recall: Implications for the discrete slot limit of working memory capacity

Chunking by social relationship in working memory

Chunk Duration Limits the Learning of Multiword Chunks: Behavioral and Electroencephalogram Evidence from Statistical Learning

Spatial–positional associations in short-term memory can vanish in long-term memory