» Articles » PMID: 7754077

Is There a Relationship Between Task Demand and Storage Space in Tests of Working Memory Capacity?

Overview
Date 1995 Feb 1
PMID 7754077
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This paper considers working memory capacity, critically examining the hypothesis that counting span (the ability to count arrays of objects and store count totals) reflects a trade-off in resources available for processing and short-term storage. Previous evidence interpreted as favouring this hypothesis has confounded task difficulty with counting time. Experiment 1 validated a manipulation of the attentional demands of counting in which target objects were differentiated from non-targets by either a single feature (colour) or a feature conjunction (a combination of line orientations). The results confirmed that the two presentations involved qualitatively different attentional loads. Experiment 2 used these displays to compare counting span for children aged 6 to 11, both with and without an adjustment of target numerosity to control for differences in processing time. At all ages, span was lower when counting took longer, but there was no difference between feature and conjunction arrays once counting time was accounted for. These results argue against a resource trade-off interpretation of counting span. Rather, they support a hypothesis of resource-switching among children, implying that counting span acts as a measure of time-based forgetting.

Citing Articles

Can't get it out of my head: Proactive interference in the visual working memory of 3- to 8-year-old children.

Hamilton M, Roper T, Blaser E, Kaldy Z Dev Psychol. 2024; 60(3):582-594.

PMID: 38421800 PMC: 11846541. DOI: 10.1037/dev0001686.


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.


Proactive interference and the development of working memory.

Hamilton M, Ross A, Blaser E, Kaldy Z Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2022; 13(3):e1593.

PMID: 35193170 PMC: 9640215. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1593.


Effect of Auditory Distraction on Working Memory, Attention Switching, and Listening Comprehension.

Nagaraj N Audiol Res. 2021; 11(2):227-243.

PMID: 34071364 PMC: 8161440. DOI: 10.3390/audiolres11020021.


On some of the main criticisms of the modal model: Reappraisal from a TBRS perspective.

Plancher G, Barrouillet P Mem Cognit. 2019; 48(3):455-468.

PMID: 31641994 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-019-00982-w.