Cognitive load in concurrent storage-processing tasks has a negative linear effect on memory span¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Barrouillet and colleagues found that the effect of cognitive load on memory span is a negative linear (deleterious) effect, supporting attentional refreshing of items. → Cowan Nelson 2014

Evidence¶

Cowan Nelson 2014¶

Cowan Nelson. (2014). Working Memory Underpins Cognitive Development, Learning, and Education. Educational Psychology Review. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4207727/

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review reports the complex-span tasks of Barrouillet, Portrat, and Camos, in which cognitive load is the proportion of time taken up by the processing task rather than free for refreshing items to be remembered. "The finding of Barrouillet and colleagues has been that the effect of cognitive load on the length of list that can be recalled, or memory span, is a negative linear (i.e., deleterious) effect."

"The finding of Barrouillet and colleagues has been that the effect of cognitive load on the length of list that can be recalled, or memory span, is a negative linear (i.e., deleterious) effect."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A shared attentional resource for storage and processing is the best supported resource theory of WM capacity but faces empirical challenges — a broader claim this one bears on
• Children too young to use attentional refreshing are limited by retention interval duration, while older children and adults are limited by cognitive load — related
• There is no convincing evidence that loading WM depletes a resource needed for the control of attention — related