scholarly journals Do complex span and content-embedded working memory tasks predict unique variance in inductive reasoning?

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (6) ◽  
pp. 2546-2558
Author(s):  
Amanda Zamary ◽  
Katherine A. Rawson ◽  
Christopher A. Was
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Inductive Reasoning ◽  
Complex Span ◽  
Unique Variance

Relation of three mechanisms of working memory to children’s complex span performance

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 460-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beula Magimairaj ◽  
James Montgomery ◽  
Sally Marinellie ◽  
John McCarthy
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Processing Speed ◽  
Memory Span ◽  
Digit Span ◽  
Span Task ◽  
Attentional Resource ◽  
Complex Span ◽  
Attentional Allocation ◽  
Unique Variance ◽  
Relative Contribution

There is a paucity of research examining the relative contribution of the different mechanisms of working memory (short-term storage [STM], processing speed) to children’s complex memory span. This study served to replicate and extend the few extant studies that have examined the issue. In this study, the relative contribution of three mechanisms of working memory — STM storage, processing speed, attentional resource allocation — to children’s complex span was examined. Children (6—12) completed a digit span task, an auditory-visual reaction time task, a task of attentional allocation, and a complex (listening) span task. Correlation analyses revealed that, after controlling for age, storage, processing speed, and attentional allocation significantly correlated with complex span. Regression analyses showed that, after partialling out age, storage accounted for 12.1% of unique variance in complex span and processing speed accounted for another 6.6% of unique variance; allocation contributed no unique variance. Consistent with the developmental literature, storage and general processing speed play critical roles in children’s complex span performance.

scholarly journals Working memory and high-level cognition in children: An analysis of timing and accuracy in complex span tasks

2020 ◽  
Vol 191 ◽  
pp. 104736 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Gordon ◽  
James H. Smith-Spark ◽  
Elizabeth J. Newton ◽  
Lucy A. Henry
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Complex Span ◽  
Span Tasks ◽  
High Level

scholarly journals Maintenance Mechanisms in Children’s Verbal Working Memory

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Laure Oftinger ◽  
Valerie Camos
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Recall Performance ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Verbal Working Memory ◽  
Concurrent Task ◽  
Verbal Information ◽  
Complex Span ◽  
Span Tasks ◽  
Joint Contribution

<p>Previous research in adults has indicated two maintenance mechanisms of verbal information in working memory, i.e., articulatory rehearsal and attentional refreshing. However, only three studies have examined their joint contribution to children’s verbal working memory. The present study aimed at extending this line of research by investigating the developmental changes occurring from 6 to 9 years old. In two experiments using complex span tasks, children of three different age groups maintained letters or words while performing a concurrent task. The opportunity for attentional refreshing was manipulated by varying the attentional demand of the concurrent task. Moreover, this task was performed either silently by pressing keys or aloud, the latter inducing a concurrent articulation. As expected, recall performance increased strongly with age. More interestingly, concurrent articulation had a detrimental effect on recall even in 6-year-old children. Similarly, introducing a concurrent attention-demanding task impaired recall performance at all ages. Finally, the effect of the availability of rehearsal and of attentional refreshing never interacted at any age. This suggested an independence of the two mechanisms in the maintenance of verbal information in children’s working memory. Implications for the development of rehearsal use and for the role of attention in working memory are discussed.</p>

The stability of working memory: Do previous tasks influence complex span?

2011 ◽  
Vol 140 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Karl Healey ◽  
Lynn Hasher ◽  
Elena Danilova
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Complex Span ◽  
The Stability

The relationship between working memory capacity and simultaneous interpreting performance

Interpreting ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jihong Wang
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Time Lag ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Span Task ◽  
Complex Span ◽  
Simultaneous Interpreting ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Native Signers ◽  
The Relationship

This experimental study investigated the relationship between signed language interpreters’ working memory capacity (WMC) and their simultaneous interpreting performance. Thirty-one professional Auslan (Australian Sign Language)/English interpreters participated: 14 native signers and 17 non-native signers. They completed simultaneous interpreting tasks from English into Auslan and vice versa, an English listening span task and an Auslan working memory span task; each interpreting task was followed by a short semi-structured interview. Quantitative results for the sample as a whole showed no significant correlations between bilingual WMC and overall simultaneous interpreting performance in either direction. The same trend was established for both the native signers and the non-native signers, considered as two separate groups. The findings thus suggest that professional signed language interpreters’ WMC as measured by complex span tasks is not closely associated with the overall quality of their simultaneous interpreting performance. Data regarding educational and professional background showed mixed patterns in relation to participants’ interpreting performance in each language direction. In the interviews, participants reported various triggers of cognitive overload in the simultaneous interpreting tasks (e.g. numbers, lists of items, a long time lag, dense information, fatigue) and mentioned their coping strategies (e.g. strategic omissions, summarization, generalization, adjusting time lag).

Working Memory and Speech Comprehension in Older Adults With Hearing Impairment

2017 ◽  
Vol 60 (10) ◽  
pp. 2949-2964 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naveen K. Nagaraj
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Working Memory ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Individual Variability ◽  
Speech Comprehension ◽  
Complex Span ◽  
Significant Variance ◽  
Key Words Identification ◽  
Speech Identification

Purpose This study examined the relationship between working memory (WM) and speech comprehension in older adults with hearing impairment (HI). It was hypothesized that WM would explain significant variance in speech comprehension measured in multitalker babble (MTB). Method Twenty-four older (59–73 years) adults with sensorineural HI participated. WM capacity (WMC) was measured using 3 complex span tasks. Speech comprehension was assessed using multiple passages, and speech identification ability was measured using recall of sentence final-word and key words. Speech measures were performed in quiet and in the presence of MTB at + 5 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Results Results suggested that participants' speech identification was poorer in MTB, but their ability to comprehend discourse in MTB was at least as good as in quiet. WMC did not explain significant variance in speech comprehension before and after controlling for age and audibility. However, WMC explained significant variance in low-context sentence key words identification in MTB. Conclusions These results suggest that WMC plays an important role in identifying low-context sentences in MTB, but not when comprehending semantically rich discourse passages. In general, data did not support individual variability in WMC as a factor that predicts speech comprehension ability in older adults with HI.

Measuring Working Memory Capacity With Automated Complex Span Tasks

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 164-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas S. Redick ◽  
James M. Broadway ◽  
Matt E. Meier ◽  
Princy S. Kuriakose ◽  
Nash Unsworth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Young Adult ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Reading Span ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Complex Span ◽  
Adult Participants ◽  
Span Tasks

Individual differences in working memory capacity are related to a variety of behaviors both within and outside of the lab. Recently developed automated complex span tasks have contributed to increasing our knowledge concerning working memory capacity by making valid and reliable assessments freely available for use by researchers. Combining the samples from three testing locations yielded data from over 6,000 young adult participants who performed at least one of three such tasks (Operation, Symmetry, and Reading Span). Normative data are presented here for researchers interested in applying cutoffs for their own applications, and information on the validity and reliability of the tasks is also reported. In addition, the data were analyzed as a function of sex and college status. While automated complex span tasks are just one way to measure working memory capacity, the use of a standardized procedure for administration and scoring greatly facilitates comparison across studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document