TY - JOUR
T1 - The mechanisms of working memory capacity
T2 - Primary memory, secondary memory, and attention control
AU - Shipstead, Zach
AU - Lindsey, Dakota R B
AU - Marshall, Robyn L.
AU - Engle, Randall W.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was conducted as part of the first author’s dissertation and supported by grants from the Office of Naval Research (N00014-12-1-0406 and N00014-12-1-1011) and the Center for Advanced Study of Language (H98230-07-D-0175 and H98230-07-D-0175). We thank David Washburn, Kenny Hicks and Tyler Harrison for helpful suggestions and discussions regarding this study.
PY - 2014/4
Y1 - 2014/4
N2 - Working memory capacity is traditionally treated as a unitary construct that can be explained using one cognitive mechanism (e.g., storage, attention control). Several recent studies have, however, demonstrated that multiple mechanisms are needed to explain individual differences in working memory capacity. The present study focuses on three such mechanisms: Maintenance/disengagement in primary memory, retrieval from secondary memory, and attention control. Structural equation modeling reveals that each of these mechanisms is important to explaining individual differences in working memory capacity. Further analyses reveal that the degree to which these mechanisms are apparent may be driven by the type of task used to operationalize working memory capacity. Specifically, complex span (processing and storage) and visual arrays (change detection) performance is strongly related to a person's attention control, while running memory span (memory for last n items on a list) performance has a relationship to primary memory that is apparent above-and-beyond other working memory tasks. Finally, regardless of the working memory task that is used, it is found that primary and secondary memory fully explain the relationship of working memory capacity to general fluid intelligence.
AB - Working memory capacity is traditionally treated as a unitary construct that can be explained using one cognitive mechanism (e.g., storage, attention control). Several recent studies have, however, demonstrated that multiple mechanisms are needed to explain individual differences in working memory capacity. The present study focuses on three such mechanisms: Maintenance/disengagement in primary memory, retrieval from secondary memory, and attention control. Structural equation modeling reveals that each of these mechanisms is important to explaining individual differences in working memory capacity. Further analyses reveal that the degree to which these mechanisms are apparent may be driven by the type of task used to operationalize working memory capacity. Specifically, complex span (processing and storage) and visual arrays (change detection) performance is strongly related to a person's attention control, while running memory span (memory for last n items on a list) performance has a relationship to primary memory that is apparent above-and-beyond other working memory tasks. Finally, regardless of the working memory task that is used, it is found that primary and secondary memory fully explain the relationship of working memory capacity to general fluid intelligence.
KW - Attention
KW - General fluid intelligence
KW - Maintenance
KW - Retrieval
KW - Working memory capacity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84894372106&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84894372106&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jml.2014.01.004
DO - 10.1016/j.jml.2014.01.004
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84894372106
SN - 0749-596X
VL - 72
SP - 116
EP - 141
JO - Journal of Memory and Language
JF - Journal of Memory and Language
IS - 1
ER -