Although working memory (WM) is usually defined as a cognitive system coordinating processing and storage in the short term, in most WM models, memory aspects have been developed more fully than processing systems, and many studies of WM tasks have tended to focus on memory performance. The present study investigated WM functioning without focusing exclusively on short-term memory performance by presenting participants with an n-back task on letters, n varying from 0 to 2, each letter being followed by a tone discrimination task involving from one to three tones. Predictions regarding the reciprocal effects of these tasks on each other were motivated by the time-based resource-sharing (TBRS) theoretical framework for WM that assumes the temporal sharing of attention between processing and memory. Although, as predicted, increasing the n value had a detrimental effect on tone discrimination in terms of accuracy and response times, and increasing the number of tones disrupted speed and accuracy on n-back performance, the overall pattern of results did not perfectly fit the TBRS predictions. Nonetheless, the main alternative models of WM do not seem to offer a complete account. The present findings point toward the need to use a larger range of tasks and situations in designing and testing models of WM. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.