Variation in Working Memory

347 Pages·2007·4.89 MB·English

by  Andrew R. A. Conway

VARIATION IN WORKING MEMORY
This page intentionally left blank
Variation in Working Memory
Edited by
Andrew R. A. Conway
Christopher Jarrold
Michael J. Kane
Akira Miyake
John N. Towse
1
2007
3
OxfordUniversityPress,Inc.,publishesworksthatfurther
OxfordUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellence
inresearch,scholarship,andeducation.
OxfordNewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
Withofficesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright#2007byOxfordUniversityPress,Inc.
PublishedbyOxfordUniversityPress,Inc.
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NewYork10016
www.oup.com
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,orotherwise,
withoutthepriorpermissionofOxfordUniversityPress.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Variationinworkingmemory/editedbyAndrewConway...[etal.].
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferences.
ISBN-13:978-0-19-516863-1
ISBN-10:0-19-516863-1
1. Short-termmemory. I. Conway,Andrew(AndrewR.A.)
BF378.S54V372006
153.1'3—dc22 2006009858
987654321
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
onacid-freepaper
Dedicated to our families
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
Workingmemory—theabilitytokeepimportant (http://www.cogsci.umn.edu/OLD/calendar/past_
information in mind while comprehending, events/millennium/top100.html). It has also
thinking,anddoing—changesdramaticallyover served as a catalyst for active research and
the life span and varies considerably from per- theoreticaldevelopment,asreflectedbythelarge
son to person at a given age. Understanding number of edited books and monographs cur-
suchindividualanddevelopmentaldifferences rentlyavailableonworkingmemory(including
is crucial because working memory is a key several edited volumes that originated as spe-
contributortogeneralintellectualfunctioning. cial issues of academic journals), some of
Ithasbeendemonstratedtoberelevanttomany which have documented recent theoretical
everydaytasks,suchasreading,makingsenseof developments in the area (e.g., Cowan, 2005;
spokendiscourse,problemsolving,andmental Miyake & Shah, 1999).
arithmetic. As such, it is the focus of consider- Despite the existence of various edited vol-
able research efforts in cognitive psychology umesandmonographsonworkingmemory,no
and cognitive neuroscience. This research has previous publication has properly explored the
wide-ranging implications for our general un- issue of the causes and consequences of varia-
derstandingofcognitiveprocessesinavarietyof tion in working memory, the focus of this vol-
populationsand settings. ume and an issue of particular importance in
Since Baddeley and Hitch (1974) intro- the field (e.g., see Jarrold & Towse, 2006).
duced their seminal model of working mem- Since Daneman and Carpenter (1980) devel-
ory, there has been growing interest in this oped the first useful measure of working
area. As a testament to the importance of this memory capacity as an individual-differences
work, the work by Baddeley and Hitch was construct among adults (for a seminal devel-
identifiedinadiscipline-widepollasoneofthe opmental perspective on working memory ca-
100mostinfluentialworksincognitivescience pacity, see Case, Kurland, & Goldberg, 1982),
viii Preface
research on working memory variation has ters, 1999). Finally, this growth in interest in
made critical contributions to theory on work- variation in working memory has been mat-
ingmemoryingeneral.Indeed,individual-and ched by growth in the scope of the practical
group-differencesresearchhashadmoreimpact application of this approach. Recent studies
on the development of working memorytheory have applied an individual-differences analysis
thanonanyothercognitiveconstruct.Working toexaminetheimportanceofworkingmemory
memory research thus represents a most suc- variance in predicting learning disability (see
cessful integration ofthe experimental and cor- discussion in Jarrold, 2001) as well as intel-
relational traditions or what Cronbach (1957) lectual functioning in typically developing
called‘‘the two disciplinesofscientific psychol- children (e.g., Bayliss, Jarrold, Gunn, & Bad-
ogy.’’Italsoservesasanexemplaryinstantiation deley, 2003; Fry & Hale, 1996) and adults
of Underwood’s (1975) notion that individual (e.g., Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999; Miyake,
differences may act as a ‘‘crucible’’ in which to Friedman, Rettinger, Shah, & Hegarty, 2001).
testgeneraltheory(seealsoKosslynetal.,2002). Moreover,advancesintheunderstandingofthe
In addition, there are a number of other neuralbasisofindividualandage-relatedvaria-
reasonswhyafocusonindividualdifferencesis tion in working memory (e.g., Kane & Engle,
especially important and timely. First, in the 2003; Munakata, 2004; Oberauer & Kliegl,
last few years, new techniques developed in 2001; Reuter-Lorenz et al., 2001; Roberts &
individual-differences research, cognitive sci- Pennington,1996)havealsobeenimportantin
ence and neuroscience have been applied to shapingthepresentresearchfield.
the issue of variation in working memory. There is clearly a need to bring this recent
These new techniques include the statistical work together in acomprehensive yet cohesive
approach of latent variables analysis (e.g., volume, particularly because existing models
Conway, Cowan, Bunting, Therriault, & and theories of working memory variation are
Minkoff, 2002; Miyake et al., 2000) and func- quite diverse and straddle so many research
tionalneuroimagingtechniques(e.g.,Braveret areas. Although some theories provide sophis-
al., 1997; Jonides, Smith, Marshuetz, Koeppe, ticated and well-developed accounts of certain
& Reuter-Lorenz, 1998). Second, there has aspects of working memory variation, they also
been a growing realization that the dominant tend to have different theoretical orientations
theoretical conceptualization of working and at the same time leave unspecified some
memory that depends solely on the ability to important aspects of working memory. In ad-
share resources between information proces- dition, we view progress in this field as being
sing and storage demands may be limited in hindered by a prototypical research strategy of
explanatory power. In particular, researchers proposing one particular underlying source of
arehighlightingtheneedtoalsoconsiderlong- working memory variation and confirming
termmemoryconstraints(e.g.,Baddeley,2000; predictionsbasedonthatidea,withoutparallel
Ericsson&Kintsch,1995)andadditionalifnot consideration of other mechanisms. Likewise,
alternative theoretical mechanisms and pro- researchers often focus their empirical efforts
cesses for working memory performance (e.g., on working memory variation within one par-
Barrouillet, Bernadin, & Camos, 2004; Lustig, ticular target population, without considering
May, & Hasher, 2001; Saito & Miyake, 2004; how research with other populations might
Towse, Hitch, & Hutton, 1998). Third, de- complement or conflict with their findings. In
spite the centrality of sentence comprehension short,thereisalackofoverallcohesionamong
research for understanding the nature of in- different research findings, and this problem
dividual differences in working memory (Da- inhibits the ability to compare and contrast
neman & Merikle, 1996; Just & Carpenter, differentproposalsaboutthenatureofworking
1992),therehasbeencontroversyregardingthe memory variation.
nature of working memory implicated during The present volume attempts to offer an
language comprehension (e.g., Caplan & Wa- integrative yet thorough approach by focusing
Preface ix
on explicit, detailed comparisons of current QUESTION 3: CONSIDERATION OF
major theoretical proposals on working mem- OTHER SOURCES OF WORKING
ory variation. Research groups have been MEMORY VARIATION
drawnfromboththeUnitedStatesandEurope
toensurethattheratherdifferentresearchper- Do you find other sources of working memory
spectives that operate on the two sides of the variability proposed in this volume to be appli-
Atlantic are well represented. A particular cable to your target population of study? Are
strength of the book is its coverage of working- these sources of working memory variation com-
memory research on a wide variety of popula- patible or incompatible with your view of your
tions,suchashealthyadults,childrenwithand target population?
without learning difficulties, older adults, and
neurologicalpatients.
Another major feature of the volume is that QUESTION 4: CONTRIBUTIONS
eachresearchgrouphasexplicitlyaddressedthe TO GENERAL WORKING
same set of important theoretical questions— MEMORY THEORY
from the perspective of their own theoretical
andappliedresearch,andfromtheperspective What does the variability within your target
of competing views from within and beyond population of study tell us about the structure,
this volume. We believe that this common- function, and/or organization of working mem-
question approach was adopted successfully in ory in general?
Miyake and Shah’s (1999) edited volume
Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Thesequestionswerecarefullychosen(through
ActiveMaintenanceandExecutiveControl and extensive discussions among the five editorial
ensured that book had a coherent focus. We team members) not only to help each contrib-
hope this approach serves as a useful device to uting team clearly outline their main theoreti-
elucidate the commonalities and differences cal position in a larger theoretical context but
amongdifferenttheoreticalproposalsonthena- also to maximize the possibility of successfully
ture of working memory variation. The ques- elucidating the commonalities and differences
tions to be addressed by each research team amongthedifferenttheoreticalproposals.More
are as follows: specifically, Question 1 was included to en-
courage each contributing team to articulate
their theoretical background directly (particu-
larlysomeunderlyingassumptionsthatarenot
QUESTION 1: OVERARCHING
always made explicit and, hence, often hinder
THEORY OF WORKING MEMORY
comparisons among different theoretical pro-
posals). Question2 isperhapsthe mostcentral
What is the theory or definition of working
oneofthefourcommonquestionsinthatitasks
memory that guides your research on working
each contributing team to specify their theo-
memory variation?
reticalproposalsaboutthenatureofvariationin
workingmemoryinthetargetpopulation(s)the
team focused on. Question 3 was designed
QUESTION 2: CRITICAL SOURCES specifically to alleviate the problem noted ear-
OF WORKING MEMORY VARIATION lier of researchers often focusing on a single
theoretical construct or mechanism in their
What is your view on the critical source(s) of work and not considering other constructs or
working memory variability within your target mechanisms proposed in the literature. This
population(s) of study? Why do you focus on questionessentiallyledeachcontributingteam
the specific source(s) of variability in your re- to reflect upon other related theoretical pro-
search? posals and clearly articulate the relationship to