scholarly journals Working memory and fluid intelligence: Capacity, attention control, and secondary memory retrieval

2014 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nash Unsworth ◽  
Keisuke Fukuda ◽  
Edward Awh ◽  
Edward K. Vogel
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander P. Burgoyne ◽  
Cody Mashburn ◽  
Jason S. Tsukahara ◽  
Zach Hambrick ◽  
Randall W Engle

A hallmark of intelligent behavior is rationality—the disposition and ability to think analytically to make decisions that maximize expected utility or follow the laws of probability, and therefore align with normative principles of decision making. However, the question remains as to whether rationality and intelligence are empirically distinct, as does the question of what cognitive mechanisms underlie individual differences in rationality. In a large sample of participants (N = 331), we used latent variable analyses to assess the relationship between rationality and intelligence. The results indicated that there was a common ability underpinning performance on some, but not all, rationality tests. Latent factors representing rationality and general intelligence were strongly correlated (r = .54), but their correlation fell well short of unity. Indeed, after accounting for variance in performance attributable to general intelligence, rationality measures still cohered on a latent factor. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that rationality correlated significantly with fluid intelligence (r = .56), working memory capacity (r = .44), and attention control (r = .49). Structural equation modeling revealed that attention control fully accounted for the relationship between working memory capacity and rationality, and partially accounted for the relationship between fluid intelligence and rationality. Results are interpreted in light of the executive attention framework, which holds that attention control supports information maintenance and disengagement in service of complex cognition. We conclude by speculating about factors rationality tests may tap that other cognitive ability tests miss, and outline directions for further research.


2020 ◽  
pp. 175-211
Author(s):  
Cody A. Mashburn ◽  
Jason S. Tsukahara ◽  
Randall W. Engle

This chapter outlines the executive attention theory of higher-order cognition, which argues that individual differences in the ability to maintain information in working memory and disengage from irrelevant information is inextricably linked to variation in the ability to deploy domain-free attentional resources in a goal-directed fashion. It also summarizes recent addendums to the theory, particularly regarding the relationship between attention control, working memory capacity, and fluid intelligence. Specifically, the chapter argues that working memory capacity and fluid intelligence measures require different allocations of the same attentional resources, a fact which accounts for their strong correlation. At various points, it addresses theoretical alternatives to the executive attention theory of working memory capacity and empirical complications of the study of attention control, including difficulties deriving coherent attention control latent factors.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Kyle Robison ◽  
Gene Arnold Brewer

The present study examined individual differences in three cognitive abilities: attention control (AC), working memory capacity (WMC), and fluid intelligence (gF) as they relate the tendency to experience task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs) and the regulation of arousal. Cognitive abilities were measured with a battery of nine laboratory tasks, TUTs were measured via thought probes inserted into two tasks, and arousal regulation was measured via pupillometry. Recent theorizing (Robison & Unsworth, 2017a) suggests that one reason why some people experience relatively frequent TUTs and relatively poor cognitive performance - especially AC and WMC - is that they exhibit dysregulated arousal. Here, we examined how arousal regulation might predict both AC and WMC, but also higher-order cognitive abilities like gF. Further, we examine direct and indirect associations with these abilities via a mediating influence of TUT. Participants who reported more TUTs also tended to exhibit poorer AC, lower WMC, and lower gF. Arousal dysregulation correlated with more TUTs and lower AC. However there was no direct correlation between arousal regulation and WMC, nor between arousal regulation and gF. Rather, the associations between arousal regulation, WMC, and gF were indirect via TUT. We discuss the implications of the results in light of the arousal regulation theory of individual differences and directions for future research.


2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (11) ◽  
pp. 1071-1077 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline A. Mogle ◽  
Benjamin J. Lovett ◽  
Robert S. Stawski ◽  
Martin J. Sliwinski

Working memory capacity (WMC) has received attention across many areas of psychology, in part because of its relationship with intelligence. The mechanism underlying the relationship is unknown, but the nature of typical WMC tasks has led to two hypothesized mechanisms: secondary-memory processes (e.g., search and retrieval) and the maintenance of information in the face of distraction. In the present study, participants ( N = 383) completed a battery of cognitive tasks assessing processing speed, primary memory, working memory, secondary memory, and fluid intelligence. Secondary memory was the strongest predictor of fluid intelligence and added unique predictive value in models that accounted for working memory. In contrast, after accounting for the variance in fluid intelligence associated with the secondary-memory construct, the working memory construct did not significantly predict variability in fluid intelligence. Therefore, the secondary-memory requirements shared by many memory tasks may be responsible for the relationship between WMC and fluid intelligence, making the relationship less unique than is often supposed.


2016 ◽  
Vol 145 (11) ◽  
pp. 1473-1492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas S. Redick ◽  
Zach Shipstead ◽  
Matthew E. Meier ◽  
Janelle J. Montroy ◽  
Kenny L. Hicks ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 853-865 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nash Unsworth ◽  
Keisuke Fukuda ◽  
Edward Awh ◽  
Edward K. Vogel

A great deal of prior research has examined the relation between estimates of working memory and cognitive abilities. Yet, the neural mechanisms that account for these relations are still not very well understood. The current study explored whether individual differences in working memory delay activity would be a significant predictor of cognitive abilities. A large number of participants performed multiple measures of capacity, attention control, long-term memory, working memory span, and fluid intelligence, and latent variable analyses were used to examine the data. During two working memory change detection tasks, we acquired EEG data and examined the contralateral delay activity. The results demonstrated that the contralateral delay activity was significantly related to cognitive abilities, and importantly these relations were because of individual differences in both capacity and attention control. These results suggest that individual differences in working memory delay activity predict individual differences in a broad range of cognitive abilities, and this is because of both differences in the number of items that can be maintained and the ability to control access to working memory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document