Cited by 1,195Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and What They Tell Us About Controlled Attention, General Fluid Intelligence, and Functions of the Prefrontal Cortex

Engle, Randall W., Kane, Michael J., Tuholski, Stephen W.·1999·Models of Working Memory

Abstract

FIVE CENTRAL FEATURES OF THE THEORY Working memory is a system consisting of those long-term memory traces active above threshold, the procedures and skills necessary to achieve and maintain that activation, and limited-capacity, controlled attention. The specific features of our model include: (1) Domain-free, limited-capacity controlled attention. (2) Domain-specific codes and maintenance (phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad are two examples but the potential number of such codes is large). (3) Individual differences in both 1 and 2, but individual differences in capacity for controlled processing are general and possibly the mechanism for general fluid intelligence. Although people can, with practice and expertise, circumvent the abiding limitations of controlled attention in quite specific situations, the limitations reemerge in novel situations and even in the domain of expertise if the situation calls for controlled processing. (4) Limited-capacity, controlled processing is required for maintaining temporary goals in the face of distraction and interference and for blocking, gating, and/or suppressing distracting events. (5) The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) and associated structures mediate the controlled processing functions of working memory. We also argue that individual differences in controlled processing represent differences in functioning of the PFC. A number of intellectual influences have served to shape our thinking about working memory (WM) and its evolution as a construct separate from that of short-term memory (STM).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9781139174909.007

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (US)
Venue
Models of Working Memory
Published
1999-04-13
Pages
102-134
OpenAlex
W1559852210
Cited by
1,195
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 66 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 60
FWCI
105.07
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
working memory, individual differences, attentional control, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, short-term memory, goal maintenance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review