The mechanisms of working memory capacity: Primary memory, secondary memory, and attention control

Shipstead, Zach; Lindsey, Dakota R. B.; Marshall, Robyn L.; Engle, Randall W.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2014.01.004

Cited by 303 publications

(372 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

319

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These last two findings, C4 and C5, further underscore that the scope of WM extends beyond tests of immediate memory. The fourth finding is that measures of WM capacity are positively correlated with indicators of the success in overcoming distraction in simple attentional paradigms (C4), such as the anti-saccade task (Chuderski, 2014;Shipstead, Lindsey, Marshall, & Engle, 2014), the Stroop task Meier & Kane, 2013), the flanker task (Heitz & Engle, 2007; but see Keye, Wilhelm, Oberauer, & van Ravenzwaaij, 2009), and the prevalence of selfreported task-unrelated thoughts (McVay & Kane, 2009. Examples of frequently used paradigms for measuring controlled attention are given in Figure 14.…”

Section: Round C: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 96%

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

Section: Round C: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 96%

What limits working memory capacity?

Oberauer

Farrell

Jarrold

et al. 2016

Psychological Bulletin

278

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Working memory (WM) is a cognitive system that allows individuals to attend to goal-relevant memories (Shipstead, Lindsey, Marshall, & Engle, 2014). The mechanisms of WM include primary memory, attentional control, and secondary memory, each of which makes a contribution to WM (e.g., Shipstead et BILINGUAL WORKING MEMORY 7 al., 2014;Unsworth & Engle, 2010).…”

Section: Bilingual Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Working memory capacity: Is there a bilingual advantage?

Ratiu

Azuma

2014

Journal of Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Working memory enables individuals to select, maintain, and update information relevant to current goals or contexts, in the presence of internal and external distraction, and across diverse and ongoing cognitions (Engle, 2002;McCabe, Roediger, McDaniel, Balota, & Hambrick, 2010;Shipstead, Lindsey, Marshall, Engle, 2014;Unsworth & Engle, 2007). Because of the importance of these attention-and memory-related abilities to a wide variety of higher-order cognitive tasks, individuals with higher working memory capacity (WMC) generally exhibit a performance advantage over those with lower WMC (see Barrett, Tugade, & Engle, 2004, for a review).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enclothed Cognition and Controlled Attention during Insight Problem-Solving

Stockum¹,

DeCaro

2014

The Journal of Problem Solving

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) increase the ability and tendency to devote greater attentional control to a task-improving performance on a wide range of skills. In addition, recent research on enclothed cognition demonstrates that the situational influence of wearing a white lab coat increases controlled attention, due to the symbolic meaning and physical experience of wearing the coat. We examined whether these positive influences on attentional control lead to negative performance outcomes on insight problem-solving, a task thought to rely on associative processes that operate largely outside of explicit attentional control. Participants completed matchstick arithmetic problems while either wearing a white lab coat or in a no-coat control condition. Higher WMC was associated with lower insight problem-solving accuracy in the no-coat condition. In the coat condition, the insight problem-solving accuracy of lower WMC individuals dropped to the level of those higher in WMC. These results indicate that wearing a white lab coat led individuals to increase attentional control towards problem solving, hindering even lower WMC individuals from engaging in more diffuse, associative problem-solving processes, at which they otherwise excel. Trait and state factors known to increase controlled attention and improve performance on more attention-demanding tasks interact to hinder insight problem-solving.

show abstract

The mechanisms of working memory capacity: Primary memory, secondary memory, and attention control

Cited by 303 publications

References 73 publications

What limits working memory capacity?

What limits working memory capacity?

Working memory capacity: Is there a bilingual advantage?

Enclothed Cognition and Controlled Attention during Insight Problem-Solving

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About