Binding tasks showed no separate episodic buffer faculty, loading instead with visuospatial tasks or the focus of attention¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Visuospatial and cross-modal binding tasks correlated most strongly with visuospatial tasks (above .30), and phonological binding correlated most with nonword repetition (.27), indicating binding does not require a special storage system. → Gray Shelley 2016

Evidence¶

Gray Shelley 2016¶

Gray Shelley, Green Samuel, Alt Mary, Hogan Tiffany P., Kuo Trudy, Brinkley Shara, Cowan Nelson. (2016). The Structure of Working Memory in Young Children and Its Relation to Intelligence. Journal of Memory and Language. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5157932/

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Correlational analysis of the three binding tasks with other working memory tasks in the same sample. Visuospatial and cross-modal binding showed "their largest correlations (all above .30) with various visuospatial tasks," while phonological binding correlated most with nonword repetition (.27).

"As shown in Table 4, our visuospatial binding and cross-modal binding tasks both showed their largest correlations (all above .30) with various visuospatial tasks, whereas the phonological binding task showed its largest correlation with nonword repetition (.27) and no other correlations above .21."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A common attentional component is needed for feature binding, running digit span, and visual short-term memory tasks, while phonological storage is separate — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Digit span running loaded on the focus of attention factor rather than the phonological factor, supporting Cowan's claim that running span performance reflects attentional capacity — related
• Cowan's three-factor embedded processes model fit young children's working memory data slightly better than Baddeley and Hitch's three-factor model and decisively better than Baddeley's four-factor episodic buffer model — related
• Central executive and focus of attention factors were highly correlated but statistically distinct, warranting separate factors in young children — related
• The focus of attention factor was the only significant predictor of both fluid reasoning and visual processing intelligence when all three working memory factors were entered — related
• The episodic buffer integrates multimodal representations from WM components and long-term memory, which is important for learning — reports the opposite