2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00864.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seven‐year‐olds allocate attention like adults unless working memory is overloaded

Abstract: Previous studies indicate that visual working memory performance increases with age in childhood but it is not clear why. One main hypothesis has been that younger children are less efficient in their attention, specifically less able to exclude irrelevant items from working memory to make room for relevant items. We examined this hypothesis by measuring visual working memory capacity under a continuum of 5 attention conditions. A recognition advantage was found for items to be attended as opposed to ignored. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

19
208
5

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 125 publications
(232 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
19
208
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Davidson, Amso, Anderson, & Diamond, 2006;Gathercole, Pickering, Ambridge, & Wearing, 2004;Lee, Bull, & Ho, 2013). These age ranges also reflect previous investigations of visual WM in children (e.g., Burnett Heyes et al, 2012;Cowan, et al 2010;Shimi et al 2014;Walker et al, 1994) with similar tasks. Moreover, a number of potentially relevant factors have been proposed to emerge at around this age.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 82%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Davidson, Amso, Anderson, & Diamond, 2006;Gathercole, Pickering, Ambridge, & Wearing, 2004;Lee, Bull, & Ho, 2013). These age ranges also reflect previous investigations of visual WM in children (e.g., Burnett Heyes et al, 2012;Cowan, et al 2010;Shimi et al 2014;Walker et al, 1994) with similar tasks. Moreover, a number of potentially relevant factors have been proposed to emerge at around this age.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…can allocate attention in response to visual cues (Shimi et al, 2014) and probe frequency in visual WM (Cowan et al, 2010). However, it is possible that children are unable to actively prioritize visual items within a temporal sequence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As such WM is shown to develop later and slower than STM (Davidson, Amso, Cruess Anderson, & Diamond, 2006). Despite the complex nature of WM, it is not an isolated module and has been closely related to attention, with the two domains increasingly being viewed as overlapping constructs (Cowan, Morey, AuBuchon, Zwilling, & Gilchrist, 2010;Gazzaley & Nobre, 2012). Indeed, both of these domains share similar neural regions within the prefrontal parietal system (Gazzaley & Nobre, 2012;Ikkai & Curtis, 2011;Nobre & Stokes, 2011).…”
Section: Working Memorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of evidence suggests that these improvements depend on changes in attention processing limitations and associated neural networks that include the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) (Klingberg, Forssberg, & Westerberg, 2002;Klingberg, 2006;Olesen, Nagy, Westerberg, & Klingberg, 2003). These changes, however, do not serve as a sufficient explanation for age related capacity increases as suggested by behavioral and psychophysiological studies (Astle et al, 2014;Cowan, Morey, AuBuchon, Zwilling, & Gilchrist, 2010). Instead, other cognitive processes and brain regions might additionally explain developmental improvements in VSTM capacity, which is to date unclear.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%