Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- About the Editors
- About the Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Overview of the Handbook
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Models and Measures
- 3 The Evolution of Working Memory and Language
- 4 The Phonological Loop as a “Language Learning Device”
- 5 The Embedded-Processes Model and Language Use
- 6 Long-Term Working Memory and Language Comprehension
- 7 The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory and Language
- 8 Computational Models of Working Memory for Language
- 9 The Time-Based Resource Sharing Model of Working Memory for Language
- 10 The Ease of Language Understanding Model
- 11 Assessing Children’s Working Memory
- 12 Measuring Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and Attention Control and Their Contribution to Language Comprehension
- Part III Linguistic Theories and Frameworks
- Part IV First Language Processing
- Part V Bilingual Acquisition and Processing
- Part VI Language Disorders, Interventions, and Instruction
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
12 - Measuring Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and Attention Control and Their Contribution to Language Comprehension
from Part II - Models and Measures
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 July 2022
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- About the Editors
- About the Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Overview of the Handbook
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Models and Measures
- 3 The Evolution of Working Memory and Language
- 4 The Phonological Loop as a “Language Learning Device”
- 5 The Embedded-Processes Model and Language Use
- 6 Long-Term Working Memory and Language Comprehension
- 7 The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory and Language
- 8 Computational Models of Working Memory for Language
- 9 The Time-Based Resource Sharing Model of Working Memory for Language
- 10 The Ease of Language Understanding Model
- 11 Assessing Children’s Working Memory
- 12 Measuring Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and Attention Control and Their Contribution to Language Comprehension
- Part III Linguistic Theories and Frameworks
- Part IV First Language Processing
- Part V Bilingual Acquisition and Processing
- Part VI Language Disorders, Interventions, and Instruction
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter, we discuss the measurement of working memory capacity and attention control. We begin by examining the origins of complex span measures of working memory capacity, which were created to better understand the cognitive processes underpinning language comprehension. We then review evidence for the executive attention theory of working memory, which places attention control at the center of individual differences in working memory capacity and fluid intelligence. Next, we describe the relationship between working memory capacity, attention control, and language comprehension, and discuss how maintenance and disengagement – two functions supported by the control of attention – contribute to performance across a range of cognitive tasks. We then identify factors that threaten the construct and criterion validity of measures of working memory capacity and attention control and detail the steps our laboratory has taken to refine these measures. We close by providing practical recommendations and resources to researchers who wish to use our new measures of working memory capacity and attention control in their work.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language , pp. 247 - 272Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Ackerman, P. L., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2020). A primer on assessing intelligence in laboratory studies. Intelligence, 80, 101440.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2002). Is working memory still working? European Psychologist, 7, 85–97.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic press.Google Scholar
Blankenship, T. L., Slough, M. A., Calkins, S. D., Deater‐Deckard, K., Kim‐Spoon, J., & Bell, M. A. (2019). Attention and executive functioning in infancy: Links to childhood executive function and reading achievement. Developmental Science, 22, e12824.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2010). Validating running memory span: Measurement of working memory capacity and links with fluid intelligence. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 563–570.Google Scholar
Burgoyne, A. P., & Engle, R. (2020). Attention control: A cornerstone of higher-order cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(6), 624–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoyne, A. P., Hambrick, D. Z., & Altmann, E. M. (2019a). Is working memory capacity a causal factor in fluid intelligence? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1333–1339.Google Scholar
Burgoyne, A. P., Hambrick, D. Z., & Altmann, E. M. (2019b). Placekeeping ability as a component of fluid intelligence: Not just working memory capacity. The American Journal of Psychology, 132, 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoyne, A. P., Tsukahara, J. S., Draheim, C., & Engle, R. W. (2020). Differential and experimental approaches to studying intelligence in humans and nonhuman animals. Learning & Motivation, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 77–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiou, J. S., & Spreng, R. A. (1996). The reliability of difference scores: A re-examination. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 9, 158–167.Google Scholar
Conway, A. R., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 331–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How should we measure “change” – or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68–80.Google Scholar
Crowder, R. G. (1982). The demise of short-term memory. Acta Psychologica, 50, 291–323.Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 19, 450–466.Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Green, I. (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 1–18.Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delaney, P. F. (2018). The role of long-term working memory and template theory in contemporary expertise research. Journal of Expertise, 3, 155–161.Google Scholar
Draheim, C., Harrison, T. L., Embretson, S. E., & Engle, R. W. (2018). What item response theory can tell us about the complex span tasks. Psychological Assessment, 30, 116–129.Google Scholar
Draheim, C., Hicks, K. L., & Engle, R. W. (2016). Combining reaction time and accuracy: The relationship between working memory capacity and task-switching as a case example. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 133–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Draheim, C., Mashburn, C. A., Martin, J. D., & Engle, R. W. (2019). Reaction time in differential and development research: A review and commentary on problems and alternatives. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 508–535.Google Scholar
Draheim, C., Tsukahara, J. S., Martin, J. D., Mashburn, C. A., & Engle, R. W. (2021). A toolbox approach to improving the measurement of attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(2), 242-275.Google Scholar
Engle, R. W., Carullo, J. J., & Collins, K. W. (1991). Individual differences in working memory for comprehension and following directions. The Journal of Educational Research, 84, 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engel de Abreu, P. M. J. E., Gathercole, S. E., & Martin, R. (2011). Disentangling the relationship between working memory and language: The roles of short-term storage and cognitive control. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 569–574.Google Scholar
Farnham-Diggory, S., & Gregg, L. W. (1975). Short-term memory function in young readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 43, 226–236.Google Scholar
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 101–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, S., Myerson, J., Rhee, S. H., Weiss, C. S., & Abrams, R. A. (1996). Selective interference with the maintenance of location information in working memory. Neuropsychology, 10, 228–240.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. Z., & Altmann, E. M. (2015). The role of placekeeping ability in fluid intelligence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1104–1110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, T. L. (2017). N-back as a measure of working memory capacity. (Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology). http://hdl.handle.net/1853/58762Google Scholar
Hedge, C., Powell, G., Bompas, A., & Sumner, P. (2020, February 1). Strategy and processing speed eclipse individual differences in control ability in conflict tasks. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vgpxqGoogle Scholar
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1166–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Focusing the spotlight: Individual differences in visual attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 217–240.Google Scholar
Hunt, E, Frost, N, Lunneborg, C. (1973). Individual differences in cognition: A new approach to intelligence. In Bower, G. H., (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 87–122). Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. D., & McClelland, J. L. (1979). Processing determinants of reading speed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 151–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 637–671.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.Google Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.Google Scholar
Kramer, A. F., Humphrey, D. G., Larish, J. F., & Logan, G. D. (1994). Aging and inhibition: Beyond a unitary view of inhibitory processing in attention. Psychology and Aging, 9, 491–512.Google Scholar
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, J. D., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Redick, T. S., Bunting, M., & Engle, R. W. (2020). The role of maintenance and disengagement in predicting reading comprehension and vocabulary learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46, 140–154.Google ScholarPubMed
McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2012). Why does working memory capacity predict variation in reading comprehension? On the influence of mind wandering and executive attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 302–320.Google Scholar
Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 56–60.Google Scholar
Oswald, F. L., McAbee, S. T., Redick, T. S., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2015). The development of a short domain–general measure of working memory capacity. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1343–1355.Google Scholar
Paap, K. R., & Sawi, O. (2016). The role of test-retest reliability in measuring individual and group differences in executive functioning. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 274, 81–93.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., & Goldman, S. R. (1976). Discourse memory and reading comprehension skill. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., & Lesgold, A. M. (1977). Discourse comprehension and sources of individual differences. In Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. A. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Oxford Pyschologists Press.Google Scholar
Redick, T. S., & Lindsey, D. R. (2013). Complex span and n-back measures of working memory: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1102–1113.Google Scholar
Rey-Mermet, A., Gade, M., & Oberauer, K. (2018). Should we stop thinking about inhibition? Searching for individual and age differences in inhibition ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44 (4), 501.Google Scholar
Rizzo, N. D. (1939). Studies in visual and auditory memory span with special reference to reading disability. The Journal of Experimental Education, 8, 208–244.Google Scholar
Rouder, J. N., & Haaf, J. M. (2019). A psychometrics of individual differences in experimental tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 772–789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rouder, J., Kumar, A., & Haaf, J. M. (2019, March 25). Why most studies of individual differences with inhibition tasks are bound to fail. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3cjr5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609–612.Google Scholar
Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 4–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W. (2016). Working memory capacity and fluid intelligence: Maintenance and disengagement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 771–799.Google Scholar
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.Google Scholar
Swanson, H. L., & Ashbaker, M. H. (2000). Working memory, short-term memory, speech rate, word recognition and reading comprehension in learning disabled readers: Does the executive system have a role? Intelligence, 28, 1–30.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Psychometric Monographs, 1, 270–275.Google Scholar
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154.Google Scholar
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unsworth, N., Redick, T. S., Heitz, R. P., Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2009). Complex working memory span tasks and higher-order cognition: A latent-variable analysis of the relationship between processing and storage. Memory, 17, 635–654.Google Scholar
Waters, G., Caplan, D. & Hildebrandt, N. (1987). Working memory and written sentence comprehension. In Coltheart, M. (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 531–555). Erlbaum.Google Scholar