Article

Complex span versus updating tasks of working memory: The gap is not that deep.

Center for Lifespan Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (Impact Factor: 3.1). 08/2009; 35(4):1089-96. DOI: 10.1037/a0015730
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT How to best measure working memory capacity is an issue of ongoing debate. Besides established complex span tasks, which combine short-term memory demands with generally unrelated secondary tasks, there exists a set of paradigms characterized by continuous and simultaneous updating of several items in working memory, such as the n-back, memory updating, or alpha span tasks. With a latent variable analysis (N = 96) based on content-heterogeneous operationalizations of both task families, the authors found a latent correlation between a complex span factor and an updating factor that was not statistically different from unity (r = .96). Moreover, both factors predicted fluid intelligence (reasoning) equally well. The authors conclude that updating tasks measure working memory equally well as complex span tasks. Processes involved in building, maintaining, and updating arbitrary bindings may constitute the common working memory ability underlying performance on reasoning, complex span, and updating tasks.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Oliver Wilhelm, Jun 21, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
131 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The current study examined competing predictions of the default mode, cognitive neuroenergetic, and functional working memory models of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) regarding the relation between neurocognitive impairments in working memory and intraindividual variability. Method: Twenty-two children with ADHD and 15 typically developing children were assessed on multiple tasks measuring intraindividual reaction time (RT) variability (ex-Gaussian: tau, sigma) and central executive (CE) working memory. Latent factor scores based on multiple, counterbalanced tasks were created for each construct of interest (CE, tau, sigma) to reflect reliable variance associated with each construct and remove task-specific, test-retest, and random error. Results: Bias-corrected, bootstrapped mediation analyses revealed that CE working memory accounted for 88% to 100% of ADHD-related RT variability across models, and between-group differences in RT variability were no longer detectable after accounting for the mediating role of CE working memory. In contrast, RT variability accounted for 10% to 29% of between-group differences in CE working memory, and large magnitude CE working memory deficits remained after accounting for this partial mediation. Statistical comparison of effect size estimates across models suggests directionality of effects, such that the mediation effects of CE working memory on RT variability were significantly greater than the mediation effects of RT variability on CE working memory. Conclusions: The current findings question the role of RT variability as a primary neurocognitive indicator in ADHD and suggest that ADHD-related RT variability may be secondary to underlying deficits in CE working memory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
    Neuropsychology 03/2014; 28(3). DOI:10.1037/neu0000050 · 3.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Some eighty years after the discovery of the human electroencephalogram (EEG) and its dominant rhythm, alpha (~ 10 Hz), the neurophysiological functions and behavioral correlates of alpha oscillations are still under debate. Similarly, the biological mechanisms contributing to the general factor of intelligence, or g, have been under scrutiny for decades. Individual alpha frequency (IAF), a trait-like parameter of the EEG, has been found to correlate with individual differences in cognitive performance. Informed by large-scale theories of neural organization emphasizing the general functional significance of oscillatory activity, we tested the hypothesis that IAF is related to intelligence at the level of g, rather than at the level of specific cognitive abilities. Structural equation modeling allowed us to statistically control for measurement error when estimating the association between IAF and intellectual functioning. In line with our hypothesis, we found a statistically reliable and substantial correlation between IAF and g (r = .40). The magnitude of this correlation did not differ significantly between younger and older adults, and captured all of the covariation between IAF and the cognitive abilities of reasoning, memory, and perceptual speed. The observed association between IAF and g provides a parsimonious explanation for the commonly observed diffuse pattern of correlations between IAF and cognitive performance. We conclude that IAF is a marker of global architectural and functional properties of the human brain.
    NeuroImage 09/2013; 79:10-18. DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.059 · 6.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A latent variable study examined whether different classes of working-memory tasks measure the same general construct of working-memory capacity (WMC). Data from 270 subjects were used to examine the relationship between Binding, Updating, Recall-N-back, and Complex Span tasks, and the relations of WMC with secondary memory measures, indicators of cognitive control from two response-conflict paradigms (Simon task and Eriksen flanker task), and fluid intelligence. Confirmatory factor analyses support the concept of a general WMC factor. Results from structural-equation modeling show negligible relations of WMC with response-conflict resolution, and very strong relations of WMC with secondary memory and fluid intelligence. The findings support the hypothesis that individual differences in WMC reflect the ability to build, maintain and update arbitrary bindings.
    Frontiers in Psychology 07/2013; 4:433. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00433 · 2.80 Impact Factor