# Sensory Modality-Dependent Interplay Between Updating and Inhibition Under Increased Working Memory Load: An ERP Study

## TL;DR

This study explores how working memory load and sensory modality affect cognitive processes like updating and inhibition, using ERP measurements.

## Contribution

The study reveals how sensory modality influences the interplay between updating and inhibition under varying working memory loads.

## Key findings

- Higher working memory load leads to reduced accuracy and longer reaction times in both visual and cross-modal tasks.
- Flanker interference emerges at lower loads in visual tasks but at higher loads in cross-modal tasks.
- ERP results show modality-specific differences in N200 and P300 amplitudes under different loads.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Working memory (WM) performance relies on the coordination of updating and inhibition functions within the central executive system. However, their interaction under varying cognitive loads, particularly across sensory modalities, remains unclear. Methods: This study examined how sensory modality modulates flanker interference under increasing WM loads. Twenty-two participants performed a visual n-back task at three load levels (1-, 2-, and 3-back) while ignoring visual (within-modality) or auditory (cross-modality) flankers. Results: Behaviorally, increased WM load (2- and 3-back) led to reduced accuracy (AC) and prolonged reaction times (RTs) in both conditions. In addition, flanker interference was observed under the 2-back condition in both the visual within-modality (VM) and audiovisual cross-modality (AVM) tasks. However, performance impairment emerged at a lower load (2-back) in the VM condition, whereas in the AVM condition, it only emerged at the highest load (3-back). Significant performance impairment in the AVM condition occurred at higher WM loads, suggesting that greater WM load is required to trigger interference. Event-related potential (ERP) results showed that N200 amplitudes increased significantly for incongruent flankers under the highest WM load (3-back) in the visual within-modality condition, reflecting greater inhibitory demands. In the cross-modality condition, enhanced N200 was not observed across all loads and even reversed at low load (1-back). Moreover, the results also showed that P300 amplitude increased with load in the within-modality condition but decreased in the cross-modality condition. Conclusions: These results demonstrated that the interaction between updating and inhibition is shaped by both WM load and sensory modality, further supporting a sensory modality-specific resource allocation mechanism. The cross-modality configurations may enable more efficient distribution of cognitive resources under high load, reducing interference between concurrent executive demands.