Complex span tasks, simple span tasks, and cognitive abilities: A reanalysis of key studies

Abstract

. Within the investigation of memory span tasks, there are two basic theoretical issues presumably germane to the understanding of individual differences in cognitive abilities (Miyake, 2001). First, to what extent are individual differences in memory span tasks domain specific or domain general? Friedman and Miyake (2000) and Mackintosh and Bennett (2003) highlighted the domain-specific components of complex span tasks, whereas Turner and Engle (1989), Kane et al. (2004), andShih (2004) emphasized the domain-general component. Nevertheless, a quantification of the importance of those domain-general and domain-specific components is strongly needed. To our knowledge, this quantification has not yet been attempted. Engle, Kane, and Tuholski (1999) proposed a hierarchical view based on both domain-general and domain-specific components. A general factor can be equated with the domain-general component of span tasks, whereas specific factors can be equated with domain-specific components. This hierarchical view is explicitly tested in the present article. In addition, the relative importance of those components is specifically quantified. This quantification can help to illuminate the causes of the association usually found between memory span tasks and cognitive abilities. Moreover, it could shed light on the factors underlying individual differences in these tasks. Thus, the first goal of the present article is met by this quantification.The second theoretical issue concerns which factors underlie individual differences in memory span tasks. Surely, there are several relevant factors (Miyake, 2001). However, here we focus on the influential theoretical framework proposed by Engle, Kane, and Tuholski (1999)-namely, WM ϭ STM ϩ controlled attention. Thus, the second goal of the present article is to test the likelihood of the controlled attention view of the WM system in its relationship to cognitive abilities.Interestingly, Engle and Kane (2004) distinguished the microanalytic approach from the macroanalytic approach. The former approach is based on the selection of participants according to their scores on a given WM measure. Participants with high and with low scores are grouped and compared in elementary cognitive tasks such as the Stroop, the antisaccade, or the flanker task. The macroanalytic approach, in contrast, tests a large number of participants through several different tasks intended to represent the constructs of interest, such as short-term storage or WM. Structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses are usually performed to test the likelihood of a given theoretical view. Engle and Kane stated that the macroanalytic approach "gives a much cleaner and clearer picture [than The research referred to in this article was supported by Grant BSO-2002-01455 from the Ministerio Español de Ciencia y Tecnología. We thank Gerald Tehan, Mike Kane, and one anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to R. Colom, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Autóno...

Contribution of strategy use to performance on complex and simple span tasks

“…In contrast to these studies, Colom, Rebollo, Abad, and Shih (2006) reported that simple span performance predicted Gf. They reanalyzed data from five previous studies using the model and analyses from .…”

The Crucial Role of Working Memory in Intellectual Functioning

“…On one hand, it has been suggested that short term memory is the best predictor of the relationship between WM and intelligence (see Colom et al, 2006). This view has found support from the consideration that simple span tasks with long lists tap the same controlled mechanism as complex span tasks (Unsworth & Engle, 2006).…”

“…The possibility that WM and STM might reflect different functions and be differently related to intelligence is still debated (Alloway, Gathercole, & Pickering, 2006;Colom, Rebollo, Abad, & Shih, 2006). On one hand, it has been suggested that short term memory is the best predictor of the relationship between WM and intelligence (see Colom et al, 2006).…”

Interference between storage and processing in working memory: Feature overwriting, not similarity-based competition

“…First, memory performance is much reduced relative to comparable memory tasks without processing demand (so-called simple-span tasks). Second, combinations of memory and processing, as in complex span, are better predictors than simple span for performance on complex cognitive tasks (Ackerman, Beier, & Boyle, 2005;Daneman & Merikle, 1996; but see Colom, Rebollo, Abad, & Shih, 2006). Why does concurrent processing impair short-term storage?…”