The proposed interaction between working memory and inhibition

The influence of working memory load on response inhibition in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or reading disorder

“…As the ADHD literature is full of reports that do find inhibition problems (e.g., Castellanos et al, 2006;Willcutt et al, 2005), whereas we did not when a baseline measure of functioning was taken into account, the question arose whether an inhibition deficit would surface when WM load was increased. This would be in line with several studies into the WM-inhibition interrelationship that found WM to be superordinate in relation to other EFs like response inhibition (e.g., Brocki et al, 2008;Nyberg et al, 2009). …”

“…Several other theoretical models (e.g., Engle & Kane, 2004;Miyake et al, 2000;Roberts et al, 1994;Roberts & Pennington, 1996), supported by behavioural and neuroimaging data (McNab et al, 2008;Nyberg et al, 2009;Tsujimoto, Kuwajima, & Sawaguchi, 2007), also suggest a close interplay between WM and inhibition in healthy subjects. Although these models differ in the emphasis they place on both domains in this interaction, they all predict tradeoffs in the resources devoted to WM and inhibition under 7 high task demands (Nyberg et al, 2009).…”

“…Several other theoretical models (e.g., Engle & Kane, 2004;Miyake et al, 2000;Roberts et al, 1994;Roberts & Pennington, 1996), supported by behavioural and neuroimaging data (McNab et al, 2008;Nyberg et al, 2009;Tsujimoto, Kuwajima, & Sawaguchi, 2007), also suggest a close interplay between WM and inhibition in healthy subjects. Although these models differ in the emphasis they place on both domains in this interaction, they all predict tradeoffs in the resources devoted to WM and inhibition under 7 high task demands (Nyberg et al, 2009). The best way to study their interrelationship, is to use a within-task methodology, in which both components are manipulated in the same task and the effect of combining these variables on a common dependent measure of task performance can be examined (Beveridge et al, 2002;Nyberg et al, 2009;Verté, Geurts, Roeyers, Oosterlaan, & Sergeant, 2006).…”

“…Although these models differ in the emphasis they place on both domains in this interaction, they all predict tradeoffs in the resources devoted to WM and inhibition under 7 high task demands (Nyberg et al, 2009). The best way to study their interrelationship, is to use a within-task methodology, in which both components are manipulated in the same task and the effect of combining these variables on a common dependent measure of task performance can be examined (Beveridge et al, 2002;Nyberg et al, 2009;Verté, Geurts, Roeyers, Oosterlaan, & Sergeant, 2006). This kind of methodology of crossing two factors, allows the separation of additive and interactive effects (Beveridge et al, 2002;Nyberg et al, 2009).…”

“…The best way to study their interrelationship, is to use a within-task methodology, in which both components are manipulated in the same task and the effect of combining these variables on a common dependent measure of task performance can be examined (Beveridge et al, 2002;Nyberg et al, 2009;Verté, Geurts, Roeyers, Oosterlaan, & Sergeant, 2006). This kind of methodology of crossing two factors, allows the separation of additive and interactive effects (Beveridge et al, 2002;Nyberg et al, 2009). The interaction of these two factors, such that the effect of one factor is more pronounced under higher loadings of the other, would lend support to a unitary view of EF, and would imply that a common pool of executive resources is tapped by both domains (as hypothesized by the interactive framework of colleagues, 1994, 1996).…”