Fig 1.
Graphical representation of task design for Experiment 1.
Examples represent non-matching sequence probes for each STM task condition (i.e. item and order). Note that the same task setup characterized matching probe trials. All the task conditions (verbal versus musical and item versus order) were performed under no interference, articulatory suppression, or rhythmic tapping interference conditions.
Fig 2.
Response accuracy for Experiment 1.
(A) Response accuracy (mean and standard error) for the vSTM task as a function of STM task and interference conditions (NI: no-interference; AS: articulatory suppression; RI: rhythmic interference). (B) Response accuracy (mean and standard error) for the mSTM tasks as a function of STM task and interference conditions (NI: no-interference; AS: articulatory suppression; RI: rhythmic interference).
Fig 3.
Response latencies for Experiment 1.
(A) Response latencies (mean and standard error) for the vSTM task as a function of STM task and interference conditions (NI: no-interference; AS: articulatory suppression; RI: rhythmic interference). (B) Response latencies (mean and standard error) for the mSTM task as a function of STM task and interference conditions (NI: no-interference; AS: articulatory suppression; RI: rhythmic interference).
Table 1.
Distribution of maintenance strategies used in Experiment 1 as a function of the STM domains.
Fig 4.
Graphical representation of task design for Experiment 2.
The figures depict examples of non-matching probes for each STM task condition (i.e. item and order). Note that the same task setup characterized matching probe trials. All the task conditions (verbal versus musical and item versus order) were performed under no-interference or rhythmic tapping interference conditions.
Fig 5.
Response accuracies for Experiment 2.
(A) Response accuracy (mean and standard error) for the vSTM task as a function of STM task and interference conditions (NI: no-interference; RI: rhythmic interference). (B) Response accuracy (mean and standard error) for the mSTM task as a function of STM task and interference conditions (NI: no-interference; RI: rhythmic interference).
Fig 6.
Relative effect of interference in Experiment 2.
The distribution of the relative effect of interference (dashed and solid lines for means and standard errors, respectively) is shown for the order STM condition (collapsed across the two stimulus domains), as a function of item STM interference group (low item STM interference effect versus high item STM interference effect). Note that the two groups were determined based on a median split applied on the size of the interference effect observed in the item condition.
Fig 7.
Response latencies for Experiment 2.
(A) Response latencies (mean and standard error) for the vSTM task as a function of STM task and interference conditions (NI: no-interference; RI: rhythmic interference). (B) Response latencies (mean and standard error) for the mSTM task as a function of STM and interference conditions (NI: no-interference; RI: rhythmic interference).