High working memory capacity does not always attenuate distraction: Bayesian evidence in support of the null hypothesis

Individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) predict individual differences in basically all tasks that demand some form of cognitive labor, especially if the persons conducting the task are exposed to distraction. As such, tasks that measure WMC are very useful tools in individual-differences research. However, the predictive power of those tasks, combined with conventional statistical tools that cannot support the null hypothesis, also makes it difficult to study the limits of that power. In this article, we review studies that have failed to find a relationship between WMC and effects of auditory distraction on visual–verbal cognitive performance, and use meta-analytic Bayesian statistics to test the null hypothesis. The results favor the assumption that individual differences in WMC are, in fact, not (always) related to the magnitude of distraction. Implications for the nature of WMC are discussed.     

Attentional blink magnitude is predicted by the ability to keep irrelevant material out of working memory

Participants have difficulty in reporting the second of two masked targets if the second target is presented within 500 ms of the first target—an attentional blink (AB). Individual participants differ in the magnitude of their AB. The present study employed an individual differences design and two visual working memory tasks to examine whether visual working memory capacity and/or the ability to exclude irrelevant information from visual working memory (working memory filtering efficiency) could predict individual differences in the AB. Visual working memory capacity was positively related to filtering efficiency, but did not predict AB magnitude. However, the degree to which irrelevant stimuli were admitted into visual working memory (i.e., poor filtering efficiency) was positively correlated with AB magnitude over and above visual working memory capacity. Good filtering efficiency may benefit the AB by not allowing irrelevant RSVP distractors to gain access to working memory.     

Working through the pain: working memory capacity and differences in processing and storage under pain

It has been suggested that pain perception and attention are closely linked at both a neural and a behavioural level. If pain and attention are so linked, it is reasonable to speculate that those who vary in working memory capacity (WMC) should be affected by pain differently. This study compares the performance of individuals who differ in WMC as they perform processing and memory span tasks while under mild pain and not. While processing performance under mild pain does not interact with WMC, the ability to store information for later recall does. This suggests that pain operates much like an additional processing burden, and that the ability to overcome this physical sensation is related to differences in WMC.     

Working through the pain: Working memory capacity and differences in processing and storage under pain

It has been suggested that pain perception and attention are closely linked at both a neural and a behavioural level. If pain and attention are so linked, it is reasonable to speculate that those who vary in working memory capacity (WMC) should be affected by pain differently. This study compares the performance of individuals who differ in WMC as they perform processing and memory span tasks while under mild pain and not. While processing performance under mild pain does not interact with WMC, the ability to store information for later recall does. This suggests that pain operates much like an additional processing burden, and that the ability to overcome this physical sensation is related to differences in WMC.     

The role of working memory capacity in multiple-cue probability learning

Multiple-cue probability learning (MCPL) involves learning to predict a criterion when outcome feedback is provided for multiple cues. A great deal of research suggests that working memory capacity (WMC) is involved in a wide range of tasks that draw on higher level cognitive processes. In three experiments, we examined the role of WMC in MCPL by introducing measures of working memory capacity, as well as other task manipulations. While individual differences in WMC positively predicted performance in some kinds of multiple-cue tasks, performance on other tasks was entirely unrelated to these differences. Performance on tasks that contained negative cues was correlated with working memory capacity, as well as measures of explicit knowledge obtained in the learning process. When the relevant cues predicted positively, however, WMC became irrelevant. The results are discussed in terms of controlled and automatic processes in learning and judgement.     

Whichever way you choose to categorize, working memory helps you learn

There has been growing interest in the relationship between the capacity of a person's working memory and their ability to learn to categorize stimuli. While there is evidence that working memory capacity (WMC) is related to the speed of category learning, it is unknown whether WMC predicts which strategies people use when there are multiple possible solutions to a categorization problem. To explore the relationship between WMC, category learning, and categorization strategy use, 173 participants completed two categorization tasks and a battery of WMC tasks. WMC predicted the speed of category learning, but it did not predict which strategies participants chose to perform categorization. Thus, WMC does not predict which categorization strategies people use but it predicts how well they will use the strategy they select.     

The role of working memory capacity in multiple-cue probability learning

Multiple-cue probability learning (MCPL) involves learning to predict a criterion when outcome feedback is provided for multiple cues. A great deal of research suggests that working memory capacity (WMC) is involved in a wide range of tasks that draw on higher level cognitive processes. In three experiments, we examined the role of WMC in MCPL by introducing measures of working memory capacity, as well as other task manipulations. While individual differences in WMC positively predicted performance in some kinds of multiple-cue tasks, performance on other tasks was entirely unrelated to these differences. Performance on tasks that contained negative cues was correlated with working memory capacity, as well as measures of explicit knowledge obtained in the learning process. When the relevant cues predicted positively, however, WMC became irrelevant. The results are discussed in terms of controlled and automatic processes in learning and judgement.     

Whichever way you choose to categorize,working memory helps you learn

There has been growing interest in the relationship between the capacity of a person's working memory and their ability to learn to categorize stimuli. While there is evidence that working memory capacity (WMC) is related to the speed of category learning, it is unknown whether WMC predicts which strategies people use when there are multiple possible solutions to a categorization problem. To explore the relationship between WMC, category learning, and categorization strategy use, 173 participants completed two categorization tasks and a battery of WMC tasks. WMC predicted the speed of category learning, but it did not predict which strategies participants chose to perform categorization. Thus, WMC does not predict which categorization strategies people use but it predicts how well they will use the strategy they select.     

Binding and inhibition in working memory: individual and age differences in short-term recognition

Two studies investigated the relationship between working memory capacity (WMC), adult age, and the resolution of conflict between familiarity and recollection in short-term recognition tasks. Experiment 1 showed a specific deficit of young adults with low WMC in rejecting intrusion probes (i.e., highly familiar probes) in a modified Sternberg task, which was similar to the deficit found in old adults in a parallel experiment (K. Oberauer, 2001). Experiment 2 generalized these results to 3 recognition paradigms (modified Sternberg, local recognition, and n back tasks). Old adults showed disproportional performance deficits on intrusion probes only in terms of reaction times, whereas young adults with low WMC showed them only in terms of errors. The generality of the effect across paradigms is more compatible with a deficit in content-context bindings subserving recollection than with a deficit in inhibition of irrelevant information in working memory. Structural equation models showed that WMC is related to the efficiency of recollection but not of familiarity.     

Individual differences in working memory capacity predict sleep-dependent memory consolidation

Decades of research have established that "online" cognitive processes, which operate during conscious encoding and retrieval of information, contribute substantially to individual differences in memory. Furthermore, it is widely accepted that "offline" processes during sleep also contribute to memory performance. However, the question of whether individual differences in these two types of processes are related to one another remains unanswered. We investigated whether working memory capacity (WMC), a factor believed to contribute substantially to individual differences in online processing, was related to sleep-dependent declarative memory consolidation. Consistent with previous studies, memory for word pairs reliably improved after a period of sleep, whereas performance did not improve after an equal interval of wakefulness. More important, there was a significant, positive correlation between WMC and increase in memory performance after sleep but not after a period of wakefulness. The correlation between WMC and performance during initial test was not significant, suggesting that the relationship is specific to change in memory due to sleep. This suggests a fundamental underlying ability that may distinguish individuals with high memory capacity.     

Examining the effects of frustration on working memory capacity

The present study attempts to expand our understanding of frustration, clinical symptoms, and working memory by examining the unique contribution of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms and frustration to working memory capacity (WMC). A factor-analytic framework was utilized to isolate and examine WMC based on results from three working memory tasks that were administered in counterbalanced order to control for individual differences in baseline WMC. All participants provided subjective ratings of frustration both prior to and after administration of a frustration induction. Results suggest that although we were able to systematically induce subjective frustration for participants in the experimental group relative to the control group, WMC was not associated with induced frustration in the present study. Results also indicated that inattention symptoms predicted baseline frustration levels. This work highlights the need to examine the extent to which storage/rehearsal WMC and additional process-oriented working memory-related performance variables are related to frustration. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.     

Working memory does not dissociate between different perceptual categorization tasks

Working memory is crucial for many higher level cognitive functions, ranging from mental arithmetic to reasoning and problem solving. Likewise, the ability to learn and categorize novel concepts forms an indispensable part of human cognition. However, very little is known about the relationship between working memory and categorization. This article reports 2 studies that related people's working memory capacity (WMC) to their learning performance on multiple rule-based and information-integration perceptual categorization tasks. In both studies, structural equation modeling revealed a strong relationship between WMC and category learning irrespective of the requirement to integrate information across multiple perceptual dimensions. WMC was also uniformly related to people's ability to focus on the most task-appropriate strategy, regardless of whether or not that strategy involved information integration. Contrary to the predictions of the multiple systems view of categorization, working memory thus appears to underpin performance in both major classes of perceptual category-learning tasks.     

Working memory capacity and mind-wandering during low-demand cognitive tasks

Individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) typically predict reduced rates of mind-wandering during laboratory tasks (Randall, Oswald, & Beier, 2014). However, some studies have shown a positive relationship between WMC and mind-wandering during particularly low-demand tasks (Levinson, Smallwood, & Davidson, 2012; Rummel & Boywitt, 2014; Zavagnin, Borella, & De Beni, 2014). More specifically, Baird, Smallwood, and Schooler (2011) found that when individuals with greater WMC do mind-wander, they tend entertain more future-oriented thoughts. This piece of evidence is frequently used to support the context-regulation hypothesis, which states that using spare capacity to think productively (e.g. plan) during relatively simple tasks is indicative of a cognitive system that is functioning in an adaptive manner (Smallwood & Andrews-Hanna, 2013). The present investigation failed to replicate the finding that WMC is positively related to future-oriented off-task thought, which has implications for several theoretical viewpoints.     

Individual differences in working memory capacity affect false memories for missing aspects of events

Recently, Gerrie, Belcher, and Garry (2006) found that, when participants watch an event with parts missing, they falsely claim to have seen the missing parts--but they were more likely to claim they had seen less crucial parts than more crucial parts. Their results fit with a source-monitoring framework (SMF; Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993) explanation of false memories. In this paper we used individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) to examine the SMF explanation of false memories for missing aspects of events. An accumulating body of research suggests that WMC is strongly related to controlling attention, including the ability to distinguish between sources of information. The primary purpose of the present study was to examine whether people with larger WMC are better able to ward off false memories for missing information than those with a smaller WMC. We showed that higher WMC reduced false recognition of crucial information, but did not change false recognition of noncrucial information. Additionally, we found that WMC had little effect on participants' subjective experience of true and false recognition of events, regardless whether the information was crucial or not. These results provide further evidence that people's WMC is related to their source-monitoring ability.     

Working memory capacity modulates task performance but has little influence on task choice

Variation in the ability to maintain internal goals while resolving competition from multiple information streams has been related to individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC). In a multitask environment, task choice and task performance are influenced by internal goals, prior behavior within the environment, and the availability of relevant and irrelevant information in the environment. Using the voluntary task-switching procedure, task performance, as measured by switch costs, was related to WMC, but only at short preparation intervals. Task choice processes were only weakly related to WMC. These findings are consistent with models of cognitive control that separate task choice processes from the processes of activating and maintaining task readiness. WMC is related to regulation of specific task parameters but not to choice processes integral to the coordination of multiple sources of information.     

Working memory capacity and the top-down control of visual search: Exploring the boundaries of "executive attention"

The executive attention theory of working memory capacity (WMC) proposes that measures of WMC broadly predict higher order cognitive abilities because they tap important and general attention capabilities (R. W. Engle & M. J. Kane, 2004). Previous research demonstrated WMC-related differences in attention tasks that required restraint of habitual responses or constraint of conscious focus. To further specify the executive attention construct, the present experiments sought boundary conditions of the WMC-attention relation. Three experiments correlated individual differences in WMC, as measured by complex span tasks, and executive control of visual search. In feature-absence search, conjunction search, and spatial configuration search, WMC was unrelated to search slopes, although they were large and reliably measured. Even in a search task designed to require the volitional movement of attention (J. M. Wolfe, G. A. Alvarez, & T. S. Horowitz, 2000), WMC was irrelevant to performance. Thus, WMC is not associated with all demanding or controlled attention processes, which poses problems for some general theories of WMC.     

Individual differences in working memory capacity affect false memories for missing aspects of events

Recently, Gerrie, Belcher, and Garry (2006) found that, when participants watch an event with parts missing, they falsely claim to have seen the missing parts—but they were more likely to claim they had seen less crucial parts than more crucial parts. Their results fit with a source-monitoring framework (SMF; Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993) explanation of false memories. In this paper we used individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) to examine the SMF explanation of false memories for missing aspects of events. An accumulating body of research suggests that WMC is strongly related to controlling attention, including the ability to distinguish between sources of information. The primary purpose of the present study was to examine whether people with larger WMC are better able to ward off false memories for missing information than those with a smaller WMC. We showed that higher WMC reduced false recognition of crucial information, but did not change false recognition of noncrucial information. Additionally, we found that WMC had little effect on participants’ subjective experience of true and false recognition of events, regardless whether the information was crucial or not. These results provide further evidence that people's WMC is related to their source-monitoring ability.     

Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence

Early investigations of working memory capacity (WMC) and reasoning ability suggested that WMC might be the basis of Spearman's g. However, recent work has uncovered details about the basic processes involved in working memory tasks, which has resulted in a more principled approach to task development. As a result, claims now being made about the relation between WMC and g are more cautious. A review of the recent research reveals that WMC and g are indeed highly related, but not identical. Furthermore, WM span tasks involve an executive-control mechanism that is recruited to combat interference and this ability is mediated by portions of the prefrontal cortex. More combined experimental-differential research is needed to understand better the basis of the WMC-g relation.     

Individual differences in working memory capacity and visual search: The roles of top-down and bottom-up processing

Individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) have been implicated in a variety of top-down, attention-control tasks: Higher WMC subjects better ignore irrelevant distractions and withhold habitual responses than do lower WMC subjects. Kane, Poole, Tuholski, and Engle (2006) recently attempted to extend these findings to visual search, but found no relation between WMC and search efficiency, even in difficult tasks yielding steep search slopes. Here we used a visual search task that isolated the contributions of top-down versus bottom-up mechanisms, and induced a habitual response via expectation. Searches that relied primarily on bottom-up mechanisms did not vary with WMC, but searches that relied primarily on top-down mechanisms showed an advantage for higher over lower WMC subjects.     

Why does working memory capacity predict variation in reading comprehension? On the influence of mind wandering and executive attention

Some people are better readers than others, and this variation in comprehension ability is predicted by measures of working memory capacity (WMC). The primary goal of this study was to investigate the mediating role of mind-wandering experiences in the association between WMC and normal individual differences in reading comprehension, as predicted by the executive-attention theory of WMC (e.g., Engle & Kane, 2004). We used a latent-variable, structural-equation-model approach, testing skilled adult readers on 3 WMC span tasks, 7 varied reading-comprehension tasks, and 3 attention-control tasks. Mind wandering was assessed using experimenter-scheduled thought probes during 4 different tasks (2 reading, 2 attention-control). The results support the executive-attention theory of WMC. Mind wandering across the 4 tasks loaded onto a single latent factor, reflecting a stable individual difference. Most important, mind wandering was a significant mediator in the relationship between WMC and reading comprehension, suggesting that the WMC-comprehension correlation is driven, in part, by attention control over intruding thoughts. We discuss implications for theories of WMC, attention control, and reading comprehension.