Is working memory capacity task dependent?

Turner, Marilyn L.; Engle, Randall W.

doi:10.1016/0749-596x(89)90040-5

Cited by 1,909 publications

(1,815 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,730

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our initial studies, college students completed the operation span task to measure their working memory (Turner & Engle, 1989). In a typical trial of the task, participants are presented with a mathematical equation-for example, (2 × 3) − 5 = 1-and must decide whether the answer given is correct or incorrect.…”

Section: Working Memory As a Proximal Mediator Of Stereotype Threat Ementioning

confidence: 99%

An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance.

Schmader

Johns

Forbes

2008

Psychological Review

1,317

1,175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research showing that activation of negative stereotypes can impair the performance of stigmatized individuals on a wide variety of tasks has proliferated. However, a complete understanding of the processes underlying these stereotype threat effects on behavior is still lacking. The authors examine stereotype threat in the context of research on stress arousal, vigilance, working memory, and selfregulation to develop a process model of how negative stereotypes impair performance on cognitive and social tasks that require controlled processing, as well as sensorimotor tasks that require automatic processing. The authors argue that stereotype threat disrupts performance via 3 distinct, yet interrelated, mechanisms: (a) a physiological stress response that directly impairs prefrontal processing, (b) a tendency to actively monitor performance, and (c) efforts to suppress negative thoughts and emotions in the service of self-regulation. These mechanisms combine to consume executive resources needed to perform well on cognitive and social tasks. The active monitoring mechanism disrupts performance on sensorimotor tasks directly. Empirical evidence for these assertions is reviewed, and implications for interventions designed to alleviate stereotype threat are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Working Memory As a Proximal Mediator Of Stereotype Threat Ementioning

confidence: 99%

An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance.

Schmader

Johns

Forbes

2008

Psychological Review

1,317

1,175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, memory for lists of digits is impaired more by concurrent processing of numbers than of words, whereas memory for lists of words is disrupted more by concurrent processing of words than of numbers (Conlin, Gathercole, & Adams, 2005;Li, 1999;Turner & Engle, 1989; for a partial exception to this pattern see Macken & Jones, 1995). Similarly, recall of lists of words is disrupted more by processing of other words than by processing of nonwords, whereas recall of lists of nonwords is disrupted more by processing other nonwords than by processing of words (Conlin & Gathercole, 2006).…”

Section: Round B: Retention Interval and Distractor Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

What limits working memory capacity?

Oberauer

Farrell

Jarrold

et al. 2016

Psychological Bulletin

278

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review the evidence for the three principal theoretical contenders that vie to explain why and how working memory capacity is limited. We examine the possibility that capacity limitations arise from temporal decay; we examine whether they might reflect a limitation in cognitive resources; and we ask whether capacity might be limited because of mutual interference of representations in working memory. We evaluate each hypothesis against a common set of findings reflecting the capacity limit: The set-size effect and its modulation by domain-specificity and heterogeneity of the memory set; the effects of unfilled retention intervals and of distractor processing in the retention interval; and the pattern of correlates of working-memory tests. We conclude that---at least for verbal memoranda---a decay explanation is untenable. A resource-based view remains tenable but has difficulty accommodating several findings. The interference approach has its own set of difficulties but accounts best for the set of findings, and therefore appears to present the most promising approach for future development.Keywords: working memory, decay, resources, interference, individual differences WM Capacity 3 What Limits Working Memory Capacity?Working memory (WM) is the system that holds mental representations available for processing. Its limited capacity is a limiting factor for the complexity of our thoughts (Halford, Cowan, & Andrews, 2007;Oberauer, 2009). Measures of WM capacity have been identified as major determinants of cognitive development in childhood (Bayliss, Jarrold, Gunn, & Baddeley, 2003) and in old age (Park et al., 2002;Salthouse, 1994), as well as of individual differences in intellectual abilities (Conway, Kane, & Engle, 2003;Jarrold & Towse, 2006). Understanding why WM capacity is limited is therefore an essential step toward understanding why human cognitive abilities are limited, why individuals differ in these abilities, and how abilities develop over the lifespan.In this article we use the term WM capacity in a descriptive sense, referring to the fact that people can hold only a limited amount of mental content available for processing. The capacity limit is usually operationalized as a limit on how much new information people can remember over short periods of time (in the order of seconds), but there are reasons to believe (discussed below) that the capacity limit also applies to people's ability to make information in the current environment simultaneously available for processing.Hypotheses about what limits WM capacity can be organized into three groups: (1) Some theories assume that representations in WM decay over time, unless decay is prevented by some form of restoration process such as rehearsal. According to this view, WM has limited capacity because only a limited amount of information can be rehearsed before it fades away into an irrecoverable state (Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchanan, 1975;Schweickert & Boruff, 1986). (2) Alternatively, WM capacity has been characterized as a limited resourc...

show abstract

“…Working memory capacity was measured using the OSPAN task (La Pointe & Engle, 1990;Turner & Engle, 1989). In this task participants responded to a mathematical equation (e.g.…”

Section: Working Memory Capacity -Ospan Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using perspective to resolve reference: The impact of cognitive load and motivation.

Cane¹,

Ferguson²,

Apperly³

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has demonstrated a link between perspective taking and working memory. Here we used eye tracking to examine the time course with which working memory load (WML) influences perspective-taking ability in a referential communication task and how motivation to take another’s perspective modulates these effects. In Experiment 1, where there was no reward or time pressure, listeners only showed evidence of incorporating perspective knowledge during integration of the target object but did not anticipate reference to this common ground object during the pretarget-noun period. WML did not affect this perspective use. In Experiment 2, where a reward for speed and accuracy was applied, listeners used perspective cues to disambiguate the target object from the competitor object from the earliest moments of processing (i.e., during the pretarget-noun period), but only under low load. Under high load, responses were comparable with the control condition, where both objects were in common ground. Furthermore, attempts to initiate perspective-relevant responses under high load led to impaired recall on the concurrent WML task, indicating that perspective-relevant responses were drawing on limited cognitive resources. These results show that when there is ambiguity, perspective cues guide rapid referential interpretation when there is sufficient motivation and sufficient cognitive resources.

show abstract

Is working memory capacity task dependent?

Cited by 1,909 publications

References 19 publications

An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance.

An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance.

What limits working memory capacity?

Using perspective to resolve reference: The impact of cognitive load and motivation.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About