Does domain knowledge moderate involvement of working memory capacity in higher-level cognition? A test of three models

Hambrick, David Z.; Oswald, Frederick L.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.004

Cited by 50 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In an extreme group design, the top and bottom 15 participants were then selected to complete an automated version of the operation span task (OSPAN; Unsworth, Heitz, Schrock, & Engle, 2005) to stratify two groups based on their WMC. Extreme group designs are very common in WMC research and help to maximise statistical power when detecting interactions between WMC and performance (Hambrick & Oswald, 2005). The low-WMC group consisted of eight males and four females (mean age = 20.30, SD = 2.11) and a mean OSPAN score of 26.17 (SD = 11.46).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working memory capacity, controlled attention and aiming performance under pressure

Wood

Vine

Wilson

2015

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explored the possibility that individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) could predict those individuals who would experience attentional disruptions and performance decrements under pressure. Two WMC groups performed a Stroop handgun task under counterbalanced conditions of threat whilst wearing eye-tracking equipment that measured visual search activity and quiet eye (QE) aiming duration. Performance was measured in terms of shooting accuracy. Low-WMC individuals experienced impaired visual search time to locate the target and reduced QE durations when shooting at incongruent target words. Furthermore, the low-WMC group experienced significant reductions in shooting accuracy when anxious. Conversely, high-WMC individuals experienced no significant differences in attentional control or performance across congruency or threat conditions. Results support the suggestion that WMC is not only a good predictor of an individual's ability to control their attention but can also predict those likely to fail under pressure.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working memory capacity, controlled attention and aiming performance under pressure

Wood

Vine

Wilson

2015

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The paper and pencil versions of the Letter Comparison and Pattern Comparison tasks (Salthouse & Babcock, 1991) are widely used as measures of processing speed (e.g., Hambrick & Oswald, 2005;Salthouse, 1993). Both meet our critieria for "high-distraction", with many items presented on a single page.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distraction as a determinant of processing speed

Lustig

Hasher

Tonev

2006

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Processing speed is often described as a fundamental resource determining individual (e.g., I.Q.) and group (e.g., developmental) differences in cognition. However, most tests that measure speed present many items on a single page. Because many groups with slowed responding are also distractible, we compared younger and older adults on high-(i.e., standard) versus low-distraction versions of two classic speed tasks. Reducing distraction improved the performance of older adults while having little or no effect on younger adults, suggesting that the ability to limit attentional access to taskrelevant information can affect performance on tests designed to measure processing speed. Distraction and Processing SpeedThe idea that "faster is better" is powerful in cars, computing, and cognitive psychology. Group differences, especially age differences, are often ascribed to the better-performing group's faster processing. We report two studies that assessed the contribution of an attentionalperceptual variable, visual distraction, in determining age differences in classic speed tasks.Many standard speed tests use items that are individually simple, but fit many such items onto a single page, resulting in a cluttered, potentially distracting display. Many groups thought to have deficits in processing speed also have difficulties regulating attention, and thus might be especially vulnerable to distraction. These groups include children, older adults, poor readers, and young adults who score less well on intelligence tests (e.g.,

show abstract

“…In fact, some researchers have speculated that self-paced span tasks may not measure WM; rather, they are more similar to measures of STM because participants are given extra time to rehearse (Conway et al, 2005). However, given that researchers use experimenter-paced (Bunting, 2006;Kane, Poole, Tuholski, & Engle, 2006;La Pointe & Engle, 1990;McCabe, 2008) and computer-paced span tasks (Babcock & Salthouse, 1990;Hambrick & Oswald, 2005;Oberauer, 2005;Pardo-Vazquez & Fernandez-Rey, 2008) interchangeably in the literature (sometimes with little or no justification), these types of span administration should be systematically compared.…”

Section: Span-task Administrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reliability and validity estimates for the RSPAN task also will be compared to those for the OSPAN task. In the present study, the computer-paced span tasks involved a group-fixed rate for the processing component (4 s for all participants) given that numerous recent studies have used this version (e.g., Barrouillet, Gavens, Vergauwe, Gaillard, & Camos, 2009;Colom, Rebollo, Abad, & Shih, 2006;Hambrick & Oswald, 2005;Rowe, Hasher, & Turcotte, 2008;Swets, Desmet, Hambrick, & Ferreira, 2007;Zeintl & Kliegel, 2007).…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-paced versus experimenter-paced working memory span tasks: Are they equally reliable and valid?

Bailey

2012

Learning and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does domain knowledge moderate involvement of working memory capacity in higher-level cognition? A test of three models

Cited by 50 publications

References 56 publications

Working memory capacity, controlled attention and aiming performance under pressure

Working memory capacity, controlled attention and aiming performance under pressure

Distraction as a determinant of processing speed

Computer-paced versus experimenter-paced working memory span tasks: Are they equally reliable and valid?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About