Process overlap theory (POT) is a new theoretical framework designed to account for the general factor of intelligence (g). According to POT, g does not reflect a general cognitive ability. Instead, g is the result of multiple domain-general executive attention processes and multiple domain-specific processes that are sampled in an overlapping manner across a battery of intelligence tests. POT explains several benchmark findings on human intelligence. However, the precise nature of the executive attention processes underlying g remains unclear. In the current paper, we discuss challenges associated with building a theory of individual differences in attention and intelligence. We argue that the conflation of psychological theories and statistical models, as well as problematic inferences based on latent variables, impedes research progress and prevents theory building. Two studies designed to illustrate the unique features of POT relative to previous approaches are presented. In Study 1, a simulation is presented to illustrate precisely how POT accounts for the relationship between executive attention processes and g. In Study 2, three datasets from previous studies are reanalyzed (N = 243, N = 234, N = 945) and reveal a discrepancy between the POT simulated model and the unity/diversity model of executive function. We suggest that this discrepancy is largely due to methodological problems in previous studies but also reflects different goals of research on individual differences in attention. The unity/diversity model is designed to facilitate research on executive function and dysfunction associated with cognitive and neural development and disease. POT is uniquely suited to guide and facilitate research on individual differences in cognitive ability and the investigation of executive attention processes underlying g.

Summary Working memory (WM) is a significant predictor of academic performance. Emerging empirical evidence has shown that WM can be improved via computerized cognitive training (CCT). Though studies have shown that CCT can improve WM in typical and atypical populations, little is known regarding the efficacy of implementing CCT within a school setting. To address this, the current study examines whether CCT can be efficaciously implemented to remediate WM deficits in students during the school day. Among 17 participants from a school for students with learning differences, nine engaged in a CCT program for a total of 20 hr, whereas the remaining eight students engaged in an out‐of‐class reading activity. Pretest to posttest differences showed that auditory WM abilities significantly improved only for those who received the training program. These results provide initial support for the efficacy of implementing CCT training within the school setting to improve WM.

Students’ use of working memory (WM) is a key to academic success, as many subject areas and various tasks school-aged children encounter require the ability to attend to, work with, and recall information. Children with poor WM ability typically struggle with academic work compared to similar-aged peers without WM deficits. Further, WM has been shown to be significantly correlated with inattention and disorganization in those with ADHD, and WM deficits have also been identified as a potential underpinning of specific learning disorder (SLD). As an intervention technique, the use of computerized cognitive training has demonstrated improved attention and working memory skills in children with WM deficits, and children that have completed cognitive training protocols have demonstrated performance improvements in reading and math. The current study aimed to examine the effectiveness of cognitive training (conducted in a clinical setting) for students diagnosed with ADHD and SLD. Using paired-samples t-tests and a psychometric network modeling technique, results from data obtained from a sample of 43 school-aged children showed (1) that attention and working memory improved following cognitive training and (2) that cognitive training might be related to cognitive structural changes found pre- to post-training among the variables being measured. Implications for clinical practice and school-based interventions are discussed.

Working memory is thought to be strongly related to cognitive control. Recent studies have sought to understand this relationship under the prism of the dual mechanisms of control (DMC) framework, in which cognitive control is thought to operate in two distinct modes: proactive and reactive. Several authors have concluded that a high working memory capacity is associated with a tendency to engage the more effective mechanism of proactive control. However, the predicted pattern of proactive control use has never been observed; correlational evidence is made difficult to interpret by the overall superiority of participants with a high working memory capacity: they tend to perform better even when proactive control should be detrimental. In two experiments, we used an experimental-correlational approach to experimentally induce the use of reactive or proactive control in the AX-CPT. The relation between working memory capacity and performance was unaffected, incompatible with the hypothesis that the better performance of participants with a high working memory capacity in the task is due to their use of proactive control. It remains unclear how individual differences in working memory capacity relate to cognitive control under the DMC framework.

No abstract