» Articles » PMID: 15945209

What Makes Working Memory Spans So Predictive of High-level Cognition?

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2005 Jun 11
PMID 15945209
Citations 27
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Working memory (WM) span tasks involving a complex activity performed concurrently with item retention have proven to be good predictors of high-level cognitive performance. The present study demonstrates that replacing these complex self-paced activities with simpler but computer-paced processes, such as reading successive letters, yields more predictive WM span measures. This finding suggests that WM span tasks evaluate a fundamental capacity that underpins complex as well as elementary cognitive processes. Moreover, the higher predictive power of computer-paced WM span tasks suggests that strategic factors do not contribute to the relationship between WM spans and high-level cognition.

Citing Articles

Should Intelligence Tests Be Speeded or Unspeeded? A Brief Review of the Effects of Time Pressure on Response Processes and an Experimental Study with Raven's Matrices.

Gonthier C J Intell. 2023; 11(6).

PMID: 37367521 PMC: 10299616. DOI: 10.3390/jintelligence11060120.


Evaluation of children's cognitive load in processing and storage of their spatial working memory.

Chen H, Kao C, Wang T, Lai Y Front Psychol. 2022; 13:918048.

PMID: 36160601 PMC: 9493119. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.918048.


Children's Verbal, Visual and Spatial Processing and Storage Abilities: An Analysis of Verbal Comprehension, Reading, Counting and Mathematics.

Gordon R, Smith-Spark J, Newton E, Henry L Front Psychol. 2021; 12:732182.

PMID: 34925140 PMC: 8678418. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732182.


The development of metacognitive accuracy in working memory across childhood.

Forsberg A, Blume C, Cowan N Dev Psychol. 2021; 57(8):1297-1317.

PMID: 34591573 PMC: 8496917. DOI: 10.1037/dev0001213.


Icon Familiarity Affects the Performance of Complex Cognitive Tasks.

Shen Z, Zhang L, Xiao X, Li R, Liang R Iperception. 2020; 11(2):2041669520910167.

PMID: 32180935 PMC: 7059235. DOI: 10.1177/2041669520910167.


References
1.
Ericsson K, Kintsch W . Long-term working memory. Psychol Rev. 1995; 102(2):211-45. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.211. View

2.
Engle R, Cantor J, Carullo J . Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: a test of four hypotheses. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1992; 18(5):972-92. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.18.5.972. View

3.
Just M, Carpenter P . A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychol Rev. 1992; 99(1):122-49. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122. View

4.
McNamara D, Scott J . Working memory capacity and strategy use. Mem Cognit. 2001; 29(1):10-7. DOI: 10.3758/bf03195736. View

5.
Kemps E, De Rammelaere S, Desmet T . The development of working memory: exploring the complementarity of two models. J Exp Child Psychol. 2000; 77(2):89-109. DOI: 10.1006/jecp.2000.2589. View