Task analysis complements neuroimaging: an example from working memory research

Meegan, Daniel V.; Purc-Stephenson, Rebecca J.; Honsberger, Michael J.M.; Topan, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.10.011

Cited by 24 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This interpretation would conform to the current three-factor EFA model where the n -back factor has a higher correlation with the visuospatial than the numerical-verbal factor ( r = 0.68 and 0.55, respectively). Previous research has indicated that even verbal n -back tasks recruit spatial processes (Meegan et al, 2004) which this interpretation would seem to support. Furthermore, some n -back training work has shown that the most consistent transfer effects are observed in visuospatial domains, regardless of whether the n -back training consists of spatial and/or verbal material (Colom et al, 2013; Jaeggi et al, 2014; Au et al, 2015, 2016, but see Soveri et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

A Latent Factor Analysis of Working Memory Measures Using Large-Scale Data

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Working memory (WM) is a key cognitive system that is strongly related to other cognitive domains and relevant for everyday life. However, the structure of WM is yet to be determined. A number of WM models have been put forth especially by factor analytical studies. In broad terms, these models vary by their emphasis on WM contents (e.g., visuospatial, verbal) vs. WM processes (e.g., maintenance, updating) as critical, dissociable elements. Here we conducted confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses on a broad set of WM tasks, half of them numerical-verbal and half of them visuospatial, representing four commonly used task paradigms: simple span, complex span, running memory, and n-back. The tasks were selected to allow the detection of both content-based (visuospatial, numerical-verbal) and process-based (maintenance, updating) divisions. The data were collected online which allowed the recruitment of a large and demographically diverse sample of adults (n = 711). Both factor analytical methods pointed to a clear division according to task content for all paradigms except n-back, while there was no indication for a process-based division. Besides the content-based division, confirmatory factor analyses supported a model that also included a general WM factor. The n-back tasks had the highest loadings on the general factor, suggesting that this factor reflected high-level cognitive resources such as executive functioning and fluid intelligence that are engaged with all WM tasks, and possibly even more so with the n-back. Together with earlier findings that indicate high variability of process-based WM divisions, we conclude that the most robust division of WM is along its contents (visuospatial vs. numerical-verbal), rather than along its hypothetical subprocesses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

A Latent Factor Analysis of Working Memory Measures Using Large-Scale Data

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a behavioral study, Meegan, Purc-Stephenson, Honsberger and Topan (2004) demonstrated that, in an N-back task where stimuli were presented centrally, accuracy was disrupted by both verbal and spatial response tasks. They suggest that spatial processing is inherent to verbal N-back tasks even when stimuli are presented at a central location.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tasks that place greater demands on cognitive control such as the N-back task or backwards recall tend to promote the use of dual coding strategies. For example, both verbal and spatial codes are used to maintain items in the N-back task (Meegan et al, 2004) and recalling verbal items in a reverse sequence (Li & Lewandowsky, 1995). Discovering working memory tasks that tap executive processing while discouraging the use of dual coding strategies will be important for future research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Right parietal contributions to verbal working memory: Spatial or executive?

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…On each trial, participants must process the presented stimulus, add it to their maintained set of stimuli, discard the stimulus presented several trials earlier, compare the current stimulus with the one presented earlier, and then respond. The N-back task taps into updating processes involving manipulation as well as maintenance of information in WM (Meegan et al, 2004;Owen et al, 2005;Ragland et al, 2002). In this task, lower accuracy or longer reaction times to stimuli indicates difficulty in WM updating ability which was closely correlated with rumination (Joormann et al, 2007;Koster et al, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%