The Relationship between Processing and Storage in Working Memory Span: Not Two Sides of the Same Coin.

Abstract In working memory (WM) span tests, participants maintain memory items while performing processing tasks. In this study, we examined the impact of task processing requirements on memory-storage activities, looking at the stimulus order effect and the impact of storage requirements on processing activities, testing the processing time effect in WM span tests. The stimulus order effect is a phenomenon whereby span scores are higher when span lists end with a shorter task than when they end with a longer task. The processing time effect refers to the phenomenon whereby the processing speed slows for the later processing positions in a list in WM span tests when participants have more memory items to remember. Two experiments demonstrated the domain-specific nature of the stimulus order effect, which was observed only when the processing and storage materials were in the same domain (either verbal or visuospatial domains), and the domain-general nature of the processing time effect, which was observed with any combination of processing and storage materials. Although the domain specificity of the stimulus order effect is compatible with the representation-based interference view proposed by Saito and Miyake [Saito, S., & Miyake, A. (2004). On the nature of forgetting and the processing-storage relationship in reading span performance. Journal of Memory and Language , 50 , 425–443.], the domain generality of the processing time effect is inconsistent with their account and indicates the involvement of a central bottleneck in WM span performance.

[1]  Graham J Hitch,et al.  On the nature of the relationship between processing activity and item retention in children. , 2002, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[2]  Francesca Pazzaglia,et al.  Increases in Intrusion Errors and Working Memory Deficit of Poor Comprehenders , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[3]  Valérie Camos,et al.  Developmental Increase in Working Memory Span: Resource Sharing or Temporal Decay? ☆ , 2001 .

[4]  Robert H. Logie,et al.  Components of fluent reading , 1985 .

[5]  John W. Adams,et al.  Stimulus similarity decrements in children's working memory span , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[6]  Michael F. Bunting,et al.  Proactive interference and item similarity in working memory. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[7]  G J Hitch,et al.  Is there a Relationship between Task Demand and Storage Space in Tests of Working Memory Capacity? , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[8]  Klaus Oberauer,et al.  Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task practice. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  Randall W. Engle,et al.  Working Memory Capacity and Suppression , 1998 .

[10]  R. Engle,et al.  Is working memory capacity task dependent , 1989 .

[11]  Randall W Engle,et al.  Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[12]  P. Barrouillet,et al.  Time constraints and resource sharing in adults' working memory spans. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  The role of interference in memory span , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[14]  G. Hitch,et al.  A Reevaluation of Working Memory Capacity in Children , 1998 .

[15]  J. Towse,et al.  Individual differences in working memory , 2006, Neuroscience.

[16]  Akira Miyake,et al.  The reading span test and its predictive power for reading comprehension ability , 2004 .

[17]  Alan D Baddeley,et al.  The complexities of complex span: explaining individual differences in working memory in children and adults. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  Klaus Oberauer,et al.  Working memory capacity and resistance to interference , 2004 .

[19]  Andrew R. A. Conway,et al.  Working memory capacity and fluid intelligence are strongly related constructs: comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2005). , 2005, Psychological bulletin.

[20]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[21]  G J Hitch,et al.  On the interpretation of working memory span in adults , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[22]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  Working memory, inhibitory control, and reading disability , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[23]  H. Pashler.  Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[24]  Satoru Saito,et al.  On the nature of forgetting and the processing–storage relationship in reading span performance ☆ , 2004 .

[25]  R. Engle,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: a test of four hypotheses. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  Y. Ono,et al.  Genetic Structure of Spatial and Verbal Working Memory , 2001, Behavior genetics.

[27]  A. Miyake,et al.  The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: an individual differences approach. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[28]  Robert H. Logie,et al.  Processing and Storage in Working Memory Span , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[29]  N. Cowan.  An embedded-processes model of working memory , 1999 .

[30]  G. Hitch,et al.  What limits children's working memory span? Theoretical accounts and applications for scholastic development. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[31]  A. Miyake,et al.  Individual differences in working memory: introduction to the special section. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[32]  A. Miyake,et al.  Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control , 1999 .