A shared attentional resource for storage and processing is the best supported resource theory of WM capacity but faces empirical challenges¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Considerable evidence confirms that storage and processing compete for a shared content-general attentional resource, lending support to the notion that WM capacity is limited by an attentional resource. → Oberauer 2019 q2 i? Dual-task costs on processing speed diminish substantially over the first few seconds of the retention interval, challenging the assumption that maintenance requires a resource throughout retention. → Oberauer 2019 (2)

Evidence¶

Oberauer 2019¶

Oberauer, K. (2019). Working Memory and Attention – A Conceptual Analysis and Review. Journal of Cognition, 2(1): 36. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.58

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review's narrative synthesis of dual-task studies combining WM storage and processing demands from very different contents, which found dual-task costs as predicted by a single content-general resource. The review reports "considerable evidence confirming this prediction" across multiple studies.

"There is considerable evidence confirming this prediction (Chein, Moore, & Conway, 2011; Morey & Bieler, 2012; Saults & Cowan, 2007; Vergauwe, Barrouillet, & Camos, 2010), lending support to the notion that WM capacity is limited by an attentional resource."

Oberauer 2019 (2)¶

Oberauer, K. (2019). Working Memory and Attention – A Conceptual Analysis and Review. Journal of Cognition, 2(1): 36. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.58

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review identifies a challenge from dual-task studies showing the cost of memory load on response selection "diminishes substantially over the first few seconds" of retention, inconsistent with continuous resource demand for maintenance throughout the interval.

"although a memory load reduces the efficiency of concurrent response-selection tasks, that dual-task cost diminishes substantially over the first few seconds of the retention interval"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Working memory capacity is a robust indicator of success or failure in language learning — related
• Cognitive load in concurrent storage-processing tasks has a negative linear effect on memory span — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Two subsets of rational-number CCS items demand working memory capacities of 4 or 5 units respectively — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Brinley analysis of accuracy reveals two distinct functions differing in intercept for storage-only versus storage-plus-processing tasks, corroborating a disproportionate processing cost
• Age differences in memory accuracy are smaller for verbal than nonverbal storage tasks, and domain overlap between storage and processing tasks moderates dual-task age differences
• Metacognitive monitoring declines under high working memory load, suggesting functional dependence of MC on WM — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Emotion directly affects encoding, storage, and retrieval of information, including before awareness of the material, via broadening or narrowing cognitive resources and mood-dependent and mood-congruent processing — related
• Dual-task (secondary-task) measures offer concurrent cognitive load assessment but are rarely used — related
• There is no convincing evidence that loading WM depletes a resource needed for the control of attention — reports the opposite
• Children too young to use attentional refreshing are limited by retention interval duration, while older children and adults are limited by cognitive load — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Evidence that perceptual attention and WM maintenance share a limited resource is not yet convincing — reports the opposite
• Hippocampal malleability from resource-demand mismatch implies students benefit most from challenges matched to individual capacity — related
• Short-term storage capacity increases from two units at ages 3-4 to four units at ages 10-11 when executive operations are minimal — related