scholarly journals Validating running memory span: Measurement of working memory capacity and links with fluid intelligence

2010 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 563-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
James M. Broadway ◽  
Randall W. Engle
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander P. Burgoyne ◽  
Cody Mashburn ◽  
Jason S. Tsukahara ◽  
Zach Hambrick ◽  
Randall W Engle

A hallmark of intelligent behavior is rationality—the disposition and ability to think analytically to make decisions that maximize expected utility or follow the laws of probability, and therefore align with normative principles of decision making. However, the question remains as to whether rationality and intelligence are empirically distinct, as does the question of what cognitive mechanisms underlie individual differences in rationality. In a large sample of participants (N = 331), we used latent variable analyses to assess the relationship between rationality and intelligence. The results indicated that there was a common ability underpinning performance on some, but not all, rationality tests. Latent factors representing rationality and general intelligence were strongly correlated (r = .54), but their correlation fell well short of unity. Indeed, after accounting for variance in performance attributable to general intelligence, rationality measures still cohered on a latent factor. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that rationality correlated significantly with fluid intelligence (r = .56), working memory capacity (r = .44), and attention control (r = .49). Structural equation modeling revealed that attention control fully accounted for the relationship between working memory capacity and rationality, and partially accounted for the relationship between fluid intelligence and rationality. Results are interpreted in light of the executive attention framework, which holds that attention control supports information maintenance and disengagement in service of complex cognition. We conclude by speculating about factors rationality tests may tap that other cognitive ability tests miss, and outline directions for further research.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 1333-1339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander P. Burgoyne ◽  
David Z. Hambrick ◽  
Erik M. Altmann

2018 ◽  
Vol 101 ◽  
pp. 18-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishneil A. Singh ◽  
Gilles E. Gignac ◽  
Christopher R. Brydges ◽  
Ullrich K.H. Ecker

2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (7) ◽  
pp. 1430-1454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley J. Poole ◽  
Michael J. Kane

Variation in working-memory capacity (WMC) predicts individual differences in only some attention-control capabilities. Whereas higher WMC subjects outperform lower WMC subjects in tasks requiring the restraint of prepotent but inappropriate responses, and the constraint of attentional focus to target stimuli against distractors, they do not differ in prototypical visual-search tasks, even those that yield steep search slopes and engender top-down control. The present three experiments tested whether WMC, as measured by complex memory span tasks, would predict search latencies when the 1–8 target locations to be searched appeared alone, versus appearing among distractor locations to be ignored, with the latter requiring selective attentional focus. Subjects viewed target-location cues and then fixated on those locations over either long (1,500–1,550 ms) or short (300 ms) delays. Higher WMC subjects identified targets faster than did lower WMC subjects only in the presence of distractors and only over long fixation delays. WMC thus appears to affect subjects’ ability to maintain a constrained attentional focus over time.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-219
Author(s):  
Paula Jane Hubber ◽  
Camilla Gilmore ◽  
Lucy Cragg

Previous research has demonstrated that working memory performance is linked to mathematics achievement. Most previous studies have involved children and arithmetic rather than more advanced forms of mathematics. This study compared the performance of groups of adult mathematics and humanities students. Experiment 1 employed verbal and visuo-spatial working memory span tasks using a novel face-matching processing element. Results showed that mathematics students had greater working memory capacity in the visuo-spatial domain only. Experiment 2 replicated this and demonstrated that neither visuo-spatial short-term memory nor endogenous spatial attention explained the visuo-spatial working memory differences. Experiment 3 used working memory span tasks with more traditional verbal or visuo-spatial processing elements to explore the effect of processing type. In this study mathematics students showed superior visuo-spatial working memory capacity only when the processing involved had a comparatively low level of central executive involvement. Both visuo-spatial working memory capacity and general visuo-spatial skills predicted mathematics achievement.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Hartung ◽  
Benjamin Goecke ◽  
Ulrich Schroeders ◽  
Florian Schmitz ◽  
Oliver Wilhelm

In contrast to measures of working memory capacity, tests for fluid intelligence are elusive in their psychometric properties. Somewhat surprisingly, fluid intelligence is not as tractable as often conceived. We studied Latin Square Tasks (LSTs) as a group of indicators that supposedly can improve measurement of fluid intelligence. In four studies (N > 3,300), we compared competing theoretical accounts that differ in the cognitive processes proposed for successfully completing items. To this end, the cognitive demand was operationalized by two key requirements that decisively influence the task difficulty: a) processing of information with differing complexity and b) memorizing steps to the final solution. Confirming predictions, the underlying processes of LSTs are independent of stimulus type and rotation of the matrices. Relations with reasoning confirmed the validity of the novel Latin Square Tasks. Working memory capacity was a limiting resource that determined performance, however more precise predictions of item difficulties might be possible when further item characteristics will be considered. From a theoretical perspective, we discuss the superiority of a perspective on LSTs inspired by the binding hypothesis compared to relational complexity theory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document