Investigates the relationship between three factors of working memory (storage and processing, relational integration, and supervision) and four factors of intelligence (reasoning, speed, memory, and creativity) using structural equation models. Relational integration predicted reasoning ability at least as well as the storage-and-processing construct. Supervision, measured as specific switch costs, was not related to intelligence, but general switch costs were moderately correlated to the reasoning factor. The results question the view of working memory as a device for storage and processing, and the executive-attention account of working memory. They are better explained by theories describing working memory as a system for building relational representations through temporary bindings between component representations. © AbstractInvestigates the relationship between three factors of working memory (storage and processing, relational integration, and supervision) and four factors of intelligence (reasoning, speed, memory, and creativity) using structural equation models. Relational integration predicted reasoning ability at least as well as the storage-and-processing construct. Supervision, measured as specific switch costs, was not related to intelligence, but general switch costs were moderately correlated to the reasoning factor. The results question the view of working memory as a device for storage and processing, and the executive-attention account of working memory. They are better explained by theories describing working memory as a system for building relational representations through temporary bindings between component representations.

Results of a triad-classification task and a multidimensional-scaling (MDS) experiment are compared for individual observers. Both paradigms are designed to reveal whether stimuli are perceived in a holistic or analytic manner (Garner 1974). Subjects differed substantially and consistently in their triad classification pattern. The majority of subjects selected stimuli according to dimensional criteria; this classification type is thought to indicate an analytic stimulus processing. Approximately one third of subjects, however, used a classification according to overall similarity (indicating holistic processing). Except for the very first session, virtually no intermediate classification occurred. This clear separation into two classification types suggests that there actually exist two strongly preferred processing modes. Intraindividual variability between sessions in general was small. In one case, however, a spontaneous switching from a purely dimensional classification to a purely similarity classification occurred. This indicates that the observers have different processing options at their disposal, and are not forced to use a particular processing mode by the stimulus type--as has been supposed in the original concept of integrality/separability of stimuli (Garner 1974). In the MDS experiment also substantial interindividual differences in the "best-fitting" Minkowski metric were found, indicating different processing types. However, for individuals participating in both experiments, there was no correlation between the results of the two experimental paradigms. This is interpreted as a result of the subject's ability to choose between a few perceptual-processing options.