Perturbing left VLPFC with rTMS exacerbates the disruptive effect of visual distraction on episodic retrieval, indicating a causal role in resolving interference¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? A Site × rTMS × Condition ANOVA showed a main effect of Condition and a significant Site × Condition interaction, with distraction effects greater after VLPFC than vertex treatment. → Wais 2014

Evidence¶

Wais 2014¶

Wais, P. E., and Gazzaley, A. (2014). Distractibility during retrieval of long-term memory: domain-general interference, neural networks and increased susceptibility in normal aging. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00280

q2 · i? · review · r2

Repeated-measures rTMS experiment comparing actual vs. sham stimulation at left VLPFC and vertex before test blocks. "this disruption of episodic retrieval was to a greater degree in the VLPFC experiment than the Vertex experiment"; no effect size printed.

"Correct responses decreased during VD, relative to SHUT, and this disruption of episodic retrieval was to a greater degree in the VLPFC experiment than the Vertex experiment ( Figure 4B)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Attention — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Older adults show greater distractibility than younger adults during episodic retrieval of long-term memory details — related
• Auditory distraction disrupts episodic retrieval equivalently to visual distraction, indicating a domain-general interference effect in long-term memory — related
• Visual distraction disrupts functional connectivity in a left hippocampus-VLPFC-LOC network that supports episodic retrieval via visual imagery — related
• Irrelevant visual stimuli present during a memory test diminish the fidelity of episodic details retrieved from long-term memory in younger adults — related