{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029197080291970802, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00583941605839416, 'mean_word_length': 4.913793103448276, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
When does a good working memory counteract proactive interference? Surprising evidence from a probe recognition task.

It is often proposed that individuals with high working memory span overcome proactive interference (PI) from previous trials, saving working memory for task-relevant items. We examined this hypothesis in word-list probe recognition. We found no difference in PI related to span. Instead, ex-gaussian analysis of reaction time showed speed advantages for high spans specific to short lists (3 or 4 items) but absent from longer lists (6 or 8 items). We suggest that high-span advantages in reaction time are based on finesse during easy trials, not on overcoming PI.