Processing efficiency in preschoolers’ memory span: Individual differences related to age and anxiety

2009 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Visu-Petra ◽  
Mircea Miclea ◽  
Lavinia Cheie ◽  
Oana Benga
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Memory Span ◽  
Processing Efficiency

Memory Span and Individual Differences in Activation: Implicit and Explicit Measures

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey Lilienthal ◽  
Elaine Tamez ◽  
Nathan Rose ◽  
Joel Myerson ◽  
Sandra Hale
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Memory Span ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
Explicit Measures

Quantifying the Effects of Multi-Tasking on Processing Efficiency

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 1717-1721
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Fox ◽  
Joseph W. Houpt
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
System Design ◽  
Task Demands ◽  
Task Characteristics ◽  
Baseline Model ◽  
Processing Efficiency ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Unique Individual ◽  
And Task ◽  
Task Environments

The type and amount of task demands that humans must simultaneously process and respond to influences how efficient they are in completing the tasks. Capturing how and to what degree human efficiency changes in different task environments is crucial to inform an appropriate system design. An individual-based analytic approach is necessary to accurately capture performance changes and lend practical suggestions. We can provide designers with the amount and type of task demands that we expect a person to sustain adequate performance given their unique underlying cognitive properties. We develop a metric, multi-tasking throughput (MT), that provides the extent to which a person processes tasks more efficiently, the same, or less efficiently when required to complete several different types of tasks at once. This is a cognitive-based, standardized metric; meaning it yields the relative degree of change from a baseline model that is created to accommodate to unique individual differences, numbers of tasks, and task characteristics. We quantify MT by using transformations of RTs to predict the extent that external demands of multi-tasking exceeds what the cognitive system can accommodate to thereby hindering performance. We use a real world dual-task application to highlight the apparent differences in strategy and ability across individuals and alternative task environments.

scholarly journals The Contribution of Individual Differences in Memory Span and Language Ability to Spatial Release From Masking in Young Children

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (10) ◽  
pp. 3741-3751 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas MacCutcheon ◽  
Florian Pausch ◽  
Christian Füllgrabe ◽  
Renata Eccles ◽  
Jeannie van der Linde ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Memory Span ◽  
Language Ability ◽  
Stream Segregation ◽  
Spatial Cues ◽  
Speech Reception ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
Speech Reception Thresholds ◽  
Release From Masking

Purpose Working memory capacity and language ability modulate speech reception; however, the respective roles of peripheral and cognitive processing are unclear. The contribution of individual differences in these abilities to utilization of spatial cues when separating speech from informational and energetic masking backgrounds in children has not yet been determined. Therefore, this study explored whether speech reception in children is modulated by environmental factors, such as the type of background noise and spatial configuration of target and noise sources, and individual differences in the cognitive and linguistic abilities of listeners. Method Speech reception thresholds were assessed in 39 children aged 5–7 years in simulated school listening environments. Speech reception thresholds of target sentences spoken by an adult male consisting of number and color combinations were measured using an adaptive procedure, with speech-shaped white noise and single-talker backgrounds that were either collocated (target and back-ground at 0°) or spatially separated (target at 0°, background noise at 90° to the right). Spatial release from masking was assessed alongside memory span and expressive language. Results and Conclusion Significant main effect results showed that speech reception thresholds were highest for informational maskers and collocated conditions. Significant interactions indicated that individual differences in memory span and language ability were related to spatial release from masking advantages. Specifically, individual differences in memory span and language were related to the utilization of spatial cues in separated conditions. Language differences were related to auditory stream segregation abilities in collocated conditions that lack helpful spatial cues, pointing to the utilization of language processes to make up for losses in spatial information.

scholarly journals Parsing preferences and individual differences in nonnative sentence processing: Evidence from eye movements

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-151
Author(s):  
Yesi Cheng ◽  
Jason Rothman ◽  
Ian Cunnings
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
English Studies ◽  
Processing Efficiency ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Attachment Preference ◽  
Ambiguity Advantage ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Processing Mechanisms

AbstractUsing both offline and online measures, the present study investigates attachment resolution in relative clauses in English natives (L1) and nonnatives (L2). We test how relative clause resolution interacts with linguistic factors and participant-level individual differences. Previous L1 English studies have demonstrated a low attachment preference and also an “ambiguity advantage” suggesting that L1ers may not have as strong a low attachment preference as is sometimes claimed. We employ a similar design to examine this effect in L1 and L2 comprehension. Offline results indicate that both groups exhibit a low attachment preference, positively correlated with reading span scores and with proficiency in the L2 group. Online results also suggest a low attachment preference in both groups. However, our data show that individual differences influence online attachment resolution for both native and nonnatives; higher lexical processing efficiency correlates with quicker resolution of linguistic conflicts. We argue that the current findings suggest that attachment resolution during L1 and L2 processing share the same processing mechanisms and are modulated by similar individual differences.

Individual Differences in Recall

1971 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 499-501
Author(s):  
Stuart Miller ◽  
David Fleishmann ◽  
Robert Simpson
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Memory Span ◽  
Past Experience ◽  
Selection Of

22 high- and 22 low-memory span Ss (H-MS, L-MS) sorted 52 words into anywhere from 2 to 7 categories. The H-MS group later recalled more of these words than the L-MS group. The effect of memory span upon recall was attributed to the selection of a significantly larger number of categories by the H-MS Ss. The unaccounted for variance in recall was discussed in terms of past experience and innate differences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document