Oliver Wilhelm

Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide

Working memory (WM) span tasks—and in particular, counting span, operation span, and reading span tasks—are widely used measures of WM capacity. Despite their popularity, however, there has never been a comprehensive analysis of the merits of WM span tasks as measurement tools. Here, we review the genesis of these tasks and discuss how and why they came to be so influential. In so doing, we address the reliability and validity of the tasks, and we consider more technical aspects of the tasks, such as optimal administration and scoring procedures. Finally, we discuss statistical and methodological techniques that have commonly been used in conjunction with WM span tasks, such as latent variable analysis and extreme-groups designs.

WORKING-MEMORY CAPACITY EXPLAINS REASONING ABILITY - AND A LITTLE BIT MORE

A 1,3,5-trialkoxy benzene having 1-2 carbon atoms in each of the alkoxy-groups is prepared at high overall yields, with minimal formation of hazardous or polluting by-products, by reacting 1,3,5-tribromo benzene with an alkalimetal alcoholate having 1-3 carbon atoms in the molecule in the presence of a copper salt, e.g. cuprous iodide or cupric chloride, and an aprotic solvent such as e.g. dimethylformamide. The product is readily recovered from the reaction mixture in an overall yield as high as 90%.

Working memory capacity — facets of a cognitive ability construct

Abstract Working memory capacity is differentiated theoretically along two dimensions: contents and functions. The resulting 3×3 matrix was operationalized by 23 tasks sampled from the literature. Data for these tasks from 128 participants were analyzed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Regarding the content facet, spatial working memory was clearly distinct from the other two content categories. A distinction between verbal and numerical working memory was not warranted. On the functional dimension the postulated categories of simultaneous storage and transformation and of coordination could not be separated. The third category was clearly separate from the first two functions. This factor could be interpreted to reflect a mixture of variance due to mental speed and to supervisory functions of the central executive.

The multiple faces of working memory: Storage, processing, supervision, and coordination

Investigated the distinctiveness of working memory functions and their components against the background of a multi-facet model. 133 university students (mean age 26 years) performed a series of specially constructed working memory tasks. Each task represented an operationalization of specific cells of the proposed taxonomy of working memory functional and content-related facets. Dependent variables included recall performance and reaction time. Structural equation modeling yielded 3 distinct working memory functions: (1) simultaneous storage of information in the context of processing, (2) supervision, and (3) coordination of elements into structures. Further analyses allowed for a more detailed subdivision of each function into specific components. Only a minimal portion of the variance associated with working memory functions is specific to the verbal or the spatial domain. Overall, the findings demonstrate that working memory is best characterized as a highly interrelated collection of cognitive functions.

A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs.

Many psychological constructs are conceived to be hierarchically structured and thus to operate at various levels of generality. Alternative confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) models can be used to study various aspects of this proposition: (a) The one-factor model focuses on the top of the hierarchy and contains only a general construct, (b) the first-order factor model focuses on the intermediate level of the hierarchy and contains only specific constructs, and both (c) the higher order factor model and (d) the nested-factor model consider the hierarchy in its entirety and contain both general and specific constructs (e.g., bifactor model). This tutorial considers these CFA models in depth, addressing their psychometric properties, interpretation of general and specific constructs, and implications for model-based score reliabilities. The authors illustrate their arguments with normative data obtained for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and conclude with recommendations on which CFA model is most appropriate for which research and diagnostic purposes.

Working Memory and Intelligence—Their Correlation and Their Relation: Comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2005)

On the basis of a meta-analysis of pairwise correlations between working memory tasks and cognitive ability measures, P. L. Ackerman, M. E. Beier, and M. O. Boyle (2005; see record 2004-22408-002) claimed that working memory capacity (WMC) shares less than 25% of its variance with general intelligence (g) and with reasoning ability. In this comment, the authors argue that this is an underestimation because of several methodological shortcomings and biases. A reanalysis of the data reported in Ackerman et al. using the correct statistical procedures demonstrates that g and WMC are very highly correlated. On a conceptual level, the authors point out that WMC should be regarded as an explanatory construct for intellectual abilities. Theories of working memory do not claim that WMC is isomorphic with intelligence factors but that it is a very strong predictor of reasoning ability and also predicts general fluid intelligence and g.

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

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.

What is working memory capacity, and how can we measure it?

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.

Individual Differences in Perceiving and Recognizing Faces—One Element of Social Cognition

Recognizing faces swiftly and accurately is of paramount importance to humans as a social species. Individual differences in the ability to perform these tasks may therefore reflect important aspects of social or emotional intelligence. Although functional models of face cognition based on group and single case studies postulate multiple component processes, little is known about the ability structure underlying individual differences in face cognition. In 2 large individual differences experiments (N = 151 and N = 209), a broad variety of face-cognition tasks were tested and the component abilities of face cognition-face perception, face memory, and the speed of face cognition-were identified and then replicated. Experiment 2 also showed that the 3 face-cognition abilities are clearly distinct from immediate and delayed memory, mental speed, general cognitive ability, and object cognition. These results converge with functional and neuroanatomical models of face cognition by demonstrating the difference between face perception and face memory. The results also underline the importance of distinguishing between speed and accuracy of face cognition. Together our results provide a first step toward establishing face-processing abilities as an independent ability reflecting elements of social intelligence.

Why are reasoning ability and working memory capacity related to mental speed? An investigation of stimulus–response compatibility in choice reaction time tasks

A study with 114 young adults investigated the correlations of intelligence factors and working-memory capacity with reaction time (RT) tasks. Within two sets of four-choice RT tasks, stimulus–response compatibility was varied over three levels: compatible, incompatible, and arbitrary mappings. Two satisfactory measurement models for the RTs could be established: A general factor model without constraints on the loadings and a nested model with two correlated factors, distinguishing compatible from arbitrary mappings, with constraints on the loadings. Structural models additionally including factors for working memory and intelligence showed that the nested model with correlated factors is superior in fit. Working-memory capacity and fluid intelligence were correlated strongly with the nested factor for the RT tasks with arbitrary mappings, and less with the general RT factor. The results support the hypothesis that working memory is needed to maintain arbitrary bindings between stimulus representations and response representations, and this could explain the correlation of working-memory capacity with speed in choice RT tasks.