2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2005.01.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Updating in working memory: A comparison of good and poor comprehenders

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
109
0
4

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 147 publications
(120 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
7
109
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Working Memory Updating The updating of information in WM seems particularly crucial to reading comprehension (e.g., Carretti et al 2005), so we used a WM updating task adapted from the Updating Following a Relevant Criterion task proposed by Palladino et al (2001). At each assessment stage, the child was shown six lists of nouns and asked to remember the three smallest objects on each list in their order of presentation.…”
Section: Specific Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Working Memory Updating The updating of information in WM seems particularly crucial to reading comprehension (e.g., Carretti et al 2005), so we used a WM updating task adapted from the Updating Following a Relevant Criterion task proposed by Palladino et al (2001). At each assessment stage, the child was shown six lists of nouns and asked to remember the three smallest objects on each list in their order of presentation.…”
Section: Specific Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conversely, many previous studies that reported correlations between updating and other indicators of cognitive performance (Carretti et al, 2005;Chen & Li, 2007;Friedman et al, 2006;Palladino et al, 2001) utilized updating measures that drew heavily upon retrieval. In fact, in those four studies, WMU was measured almost exclusively with running memory and keep-track tasks.…”
Section: The Role Of Wmc For Wmumentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These errors consist in recalling nontarget words and are considered to reflect failures in inhibitory function. Intrusion errors in WM tasks were found to be higher for children (Carretti, Cornoldi, De Beni, & Romanò, 2005;Chiappe et al, 2000) and for older adults than for young adults (Borella, Carretti, Cornoldi, & De Beni, 2007;Borella et al, 2008;Borella, Carretti, & Mammarella, 2006;De Beni & Palladino, 2004;Lustig, May, & Hasher, 2001). Furthermore, Chiappe et al (2000) have examined the type of intrusions made in the Reading Span Test by a sample of skilled and less skilled readers from 6 to 49 years of age.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%