Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide

Conway, Andrew R. A.; Kane, Michael J.; Bunting, Michael F.; Hambrick, David Z.; Wilhelm, Oliver; Engle, Randall W.

doi:10.3758/bf03196772

Cited by 2,257 publications

(2,298 citation statements)

References 104 publications

(144 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

2,231

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We chose the complex span paradigm, which is a well-established measure of WM capacity (cf. Conway et al, 2005), as well as an excellent predictor for reasoning (e.g., Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999;Süß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002). Moreover, in our recent study mentioned above , we found that training with complex span tasks was more effective than training with other tasks of WM capacity in terms of transfer to untrained WM and reasoning tasks.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 49%

“…Modeled after the storage and processing training intervention in an earlier study , WM training consisted of three complex span tasks (Conway, et al, 2005;Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) with varying material (numerical, verbal, and figural-spatial). In these tasks, the presentation of memoranda (each for 1 s) alternates with a secondary distractor task, in which participants have to make a decision as quickly and as accurately as possible.…”

Section: Wm Training Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each of the tasks consisted of 16 trials with varying set sizes (4 to 7 memoranda). The proportion of items recalled at the correct position served as dependent variable (partial-credit unit score; for details, see Conway, et al, 2005). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Does working memory training have to be adaptive?

Bastian

Eschen

2015

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tested the common assumption that, to be most effective, working memory (WM) training should be adaptive (i.e., task difficulty is adjusted to individual performance). Indirect evidence for this assumption stems from studies comparing adaptive training to a condition in which tasks are practiced on the easiest level of difficulty only [cf. Klingberg (Trends Cogn Sci 14:317-324, 2010)], thereby, however, confounding adaptivity and exposure to varying task difficulty. For a more direct test of this hypothesis, we randomly assigned 130 young adults to one of the three WM training procedures (adaptive, randomized, or self-selected change in training task difficulty) or to an active control group. Despite large performance increases in the trained WM tasks, we observed neither transfer to untrained structurally dissimilar WM tasks nor far transfer to reasoning. Surprisingly, neither training nor transfer effects were modulated by training procedure, indicating that exposure to varying levels of task difficulty is sufficient for inducing training gains. Can fluid cognitive abilities such as working memory (WM) and reasoning be improved through computer-based WM training? This is a highly controversial question, with prior empirical studies (for reviews, see Morrison & Chein, 2011;von Bastian & Oberauer, 2014) and meta-analyses (Au et al., in press;Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014;Lampit, Hallock, & Valenzuela, 2014;Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013) providing contradictory findings. Although multiple previous studies revealed promising effects (e.g., Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008;Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Shah, & Jonides, 2014;Jaeggi et al., 2010; Klingberg et al., 2005;Schweizer, Hampshire, & Dalgleish, 2011;Stepankova et al., 2014;, a growing number of other WM training interventions failed to induce such broad transfer (e.g., Chein & Morrison, 2010;Chooi & Thompson, 2012;Colom et al., 2013;Harrison et al., 2013;Redick et al., 2013;Salminen, Strobach, & Schubert, 2012; Sprenger et al., 2013;Thompson et al., 2013;von Bastian, Langer, Jäncke, & Oberauer, 2013). The factors contributing to the success of WM training interventions in terms of improving WM and reasoning are still unclear (see von Bastian & Oberauer, 2014), and large variations (and, in some occasions, serious flaws) in the methodologies and training regimens used complicate comparisons across studies (cf. Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2012), and thus the identification of such factors. Therefore, before we can conclude whether and under which circumstances WM training can induce transfer, carefully controlled, systematic investigations of factors potentially contributing to training effectiveness are needed.In theory, cognitive plasticity occurs if there is a "prolonged mismatch between functional organismic supplies and environmental demands" (Lövden, Bäckman, Lindenberger, Schaefer, & Schmiedek, 2010, p. 659). According to Lövden and colleagues (2010), this mismatch occurs if the environmental demands exceed the routine demands the cognitiv...

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 49%

Section: Wm Training Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does working memory training have to be adaptive?

Bastian

Eschen

2015

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The tasks were taken from Unsworth et al (2009) and translated into German. We measured working memory capacity using the partial credit score (the sum of all items recalled in the correct position over all trials) as the dependent variable (Conway et al, 2005).…”

Section: Automated Working Memory Span Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pillars of judgment: How memory abilities affect performance in rule-based and exemplar-based judgments.

Hoffmann

Helversen

Rieskamp

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Making accurate judgments is an essential skill in everyday life. Although how different memory abilities relate to categorization and judgment processes has been hotly debated, the question is far from resolved. We contribute to the solution by investigating how individual differences in memory abilities affect judgment performance in 2 tasks that induced rule-based or exemplar-based judgment strategies. In a study with 279 participants, we investigated how working memory and episodic memory affect judgment accuracy and strategy use. As predicted, participants switched strategies between tasks. Furthermore, structural equation modeling showed that the ability to solve rule-based tasks was predicted by working memory, whereas episodic memory predicted judgment accuracy in the exemplar-based task. Last, the probability of choosing an exemplar-based strategy was related to better episodic memory, but strategy selection was unrelated to working memory capacity. In sum, our results suggest that different memory abilities are essential for successfully adopting different judgment strategies.

show abstract

“…This combination of short-term storage and processing requirements implements the basic definition of WM as simultaneous storage and processing (Baddeley, 2007). Because of potential trade-offs between the two components, CSTs come with the problem that performance on the secondary task cannot easily be disregarded when determining WM span on the basis of number of items recalled (Conway et al, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Complex span versus updating tasks of working memory: The gap is not that deep.

Schmiedek¹,

Hildebrandt²,

Lövdén³

et al. 2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

211

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How to best measure working memory capacity is an issue of ongoing debate. Besides established complex span tasks, which combine short-term memory demands with generally unrelated secondary tasks, there exists a set of paradigms characterized by continuous and simultaneous updating of several items in working memory, such as the n-back, memory updating, or alpha span tasks. With a latent variable analysis (N ϭ 96) based on content-heterogeneous operationalizations of both task families, the authors found a latent correlation between a complex span factor and an updating factor that was not statistically different from unity (r ϭ .96). Moreover, both factors predicted fluid intelligence (reasoning) equally well. The authors conclude that updating tasks measure working memory equally well as complex span tasks. Processes involved in building, maintaining, and updating arbitrary bindings may constitute the common working memory ability underlying performance on reasoning, complex span, and updating tasks.

show abstract

Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide

Cited by 2,257 publications

References 104 publications

Does working memory training have to be adaptive?

Does working memory training have to be adaptive?

Pillars of judgment: How memory abilities affect performance in rule-based and exemplar-based judgments.

Complex span versus updating tasks of working memory: The gap is not that deep.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About