Reasoning=working memory≠attention

Buehner, Markus; Krumm, Stefan; Pick, Marion

doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.01.002

Cited by 86 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(65 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the success of RI tasks is considerable progress in refining the construct WMC, and in developing a more profound understanding of individual differences in reasoning ability. Two further studies following up on the present one, using the no-memory versions of our RI tasks, replicated their strong correlation with tests of reasoning ability (Buehner, Krumm, & Pick, 2005;Buehner, Krumm, Ziegler, & Pluecken, 2006). In contrast, supervision, measured by general or specific switch costs, contributed very little to the explanation of intelligence.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Which working memory functions predict intelligence?

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Â© 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Which working memory functions predict intelligence?

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Oberauer and colleagues (Oberauer, Süß, Schulze, Wilhelm, & Wittmann, 2000;Oberauer, Süß, Wilhelm, & Wittman, 2003) have used such an approach to decompose the WM capacity construct into functional components (simultaneous storage and processing, relational integration/ coordination, and supervision/speed) and content facets (verbal/ numerical vs. spatial WM), which were then used to investigate the relations between functional WM components and higher cognitive functions such as reasoning (Oberauer, Süß, Wilhelm, & Wittmann, 2008) or attention (Buehner, Krumm, & Pick, 2005).…”

Section: Wm Updating and Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The components of working memory updating: An experimental decomposition and individual differences.

Ecker

Lewandowsky

Oberauer³

et al. 2010

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

215

237

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Working memory updating (WMU) has been identified as a cognitive function of prime importance for everyday tasks and has also been found to be a significant predictor of higher mental abilities. Yet, little is known about the constituent processes of WMU. We suggest that operations required in a typical WMU task can be decomposed into 3 major component processes: retrieval, transformation, and substitution. We report a large-scale experiment that instantiated all possible combinations of those 3 component processes. Results show that the 3 components make independent contributions to updating performance. We additionally present structural equation models that link WMU task performance and working memory capacity (WMC) measures. These feature the methodological advancement of estimating interindividual covariation and experimental effects on mean updating measures simultaneously. The modeling results imply that WMC is a strong predictor of WMU skills in general, although some component processes-in particular, substitution skills-were independent of WMC. Hence, the reported predictive power ofWMUmeasures may rely largely on common WM functions also measured in typical WMC tasks, although substitution skills may make an independent contribution to predicting higher mental abilities.

show abstract

“…Engle (2002) Many authors agree on the fact that WMC and reasoning ability are strongly related (Buehner, Krumm, & Pick, 2005;Conway et al, 2002;Engle et al, 1999;Kane, Hambrick, & Conway, 2005;Krumm et al, 2009;Kyllonen & Christal, 1990;Ren, Schweizer, & Xu, 2013;Schweizer & Moosbrugger, 2004;Schweizer, Moosbrugger, & Goldhammer, 2005;Süß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002). Working memory capacity is considered the best predictor of general and fluid intellectual abilities.…”

Section: Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, so far no one has been able to sufficiently explain the mechanism which underlies this relationship. For instance, disagreement exists on the question whether attentional functions are the exact mediators (Conway et al, 2002;Engle et al, 1999;Ren et al, 2013;Schweizer & Moosbrugger, 2004;Schweizer et al, 2005; but see: Buehner et al, 2005;Chuderski, Taraday, Nęcka, & Smoleń, 2012).…”

Section: Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%