Interference control, working memory capacity, and cognitive abilities: A latent variable analysis

Intelligence ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nash Unsworth
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew S. Welhaf ◽  
Bridget A. Smeekens ◽  
Matt E. Meier ◽  
Paul J. Silvia ◽  
Thomas R. Kwapil ◽  
...  

The worst performance rule (WPR) is a robust empirical finding reflecting that people’s worst task performance shows numerically stronger correlations with cognitive ability than their average or best performance. However, recent meta-analytic work has proposed this be renamed the “not-best performance” rule because mean and worst performance seem to predict cognitive ability to similar degrees, with both predicting ability better than best performance. We re-analyzed data from a previously published latent-variable study to test for worst vs. not-best performance across a variety of reaction time tasks in relation to two cognitive ability constructs: working memory capacity (WMC) and propensity for task-unrelated thought (TUT). Using two methods of assessing worst performance—ranked-binning and ex-Gaussian-modeling approaches—we found evidence for both the worst and not-best performance rules. WMC followed the not-best performance rule (correlating equivalently with mean and longest response times (RTs)) but TUT propensity followed the worst performance rule (correlating more strongly with longest RTs). Additionally, we created a mini-multiverse following different outlier exclusion rules to test the robustness of our findings; our findings remained stable across the different multiverse iterations. We provisionally conclude that the worst performance rule may only arise in relation to cognitive abilities closely linked to (failures of) sustained attention.


2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 239-249
Author(s):  
Xuezhu Ren ◽  
Tengfei Wang ◽  
Karl Schweizer ◽  
Jing Guo

Abstract. Although attention control accounts for a unique portion of the variance in working memory capacity (WMC), the way in which attention control contributes to WMC has not been thoroughly specified. The current work focused on fractionating attention control into distinctly different executive processes and examined to what extent key processes of attention control including updating, shifting, and prepotent response inhibition were related to WMC and whether these relations were different. A number of 216 university students completed experimental tasks of attention control and two measures of WMC. Latent variable analyses were employed for separating and modeling each process and their effects on WMC. The results showed that both the accuracy of updating and shifting were substantially related to WMC while the link from the accuracy of inhibition to WMC was insignificant; on the other hand, only the speed of shifting had a moderate effect on WMC while neither the speed of updating nor the speed of inhibition showed significant effect on WMC. The results suggest that these key processes of attention control exhibit differential effects on individual differences in WMC. The approach that combined experimental manipulations and statistical modeling constitutes a promising way of investigating cognitive processes.


2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 772-782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Bomyea ◽  
Charles T. Taylor ◽  
Andrea D. Spadoni ◽  
Alan N. Simmons

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.


2012 ◽  
Vol 516 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yukio Tsuchida ◽  
Jun’ichi Katayama ◽  
Harumitsu Murohashi

Author(s):  
Gidon T. Frischkorn ◽  
Klaus Oberauer

AbstractThere is a strong relationship between fluid intelligence and working memory capacity (WMC). Yet, the cognitive mechanisms underlying this relationship remain elusive. The capacity hypothesis states that this relationship is due to limitations in the amount of information that can be stored and held active in working memory. Previous research aimed at testing the capacity hypothesis assumed that it implies stronger relationships of intelligence test performance with WMC for test items with higher capacity demands. The present article addresses this assumption through simulations of three theoretical models implementing the capacity hypothesis while systematically varying different psychometric variables. The results show that almost any relation between the capacity demands of items and their correlation with WMC can be obtained. Therefore, the assumption made by previous studies does not hold: The capacity hypothesis does not imply stronger correlations of WMC and intelligence test items with higher capacity demands. Items varying in capacity demands cannot be used to test the causality of WMC (or any other latent variable) for fluid intelligence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document