Children too young to use attentional refreshing are limited by retention interval duration, while older children and adults are limited by cognitive load¶

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? Children about 4 years of age and younger do not seem to use attention to refresh items, so their performance depends on retention interval duration, whereas for older children and adults cognitive load determines performance. → 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 evidence on attentional refreshing in development: "Children who are too young (about 4 years of age and younger) do not seem to use attention to refresh items," so retention interval duration limits them, while older children and adults are limited by cognitive load instead. The author calls this a phase change comparable to the advent of verbal rehearsal.

"Children who are too young (about 4 years of age and younger) do not seem to use attention to refresh items. For them, the limit in performance depends on the duration of the retention interval. For older children and adults, who are able to refresh, it is not the absolute duration but the cognitive load that determines performance"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

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