The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and What They Tell Us About Controlled Attention, General Fluid Intelligence, and Functions of the Prefrontal Cortex
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).
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“we have argued that WM = STM + controlled attention, and that the general, controlled-attention component of the WM system primarily drives the predictive utility of WM span tasks”
From Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. (2003) · cites this paper as Engle, Kane et al., 1999
In the citing paper
“Prior research has established the OSPAN task to be a reliable and valid marker of WM capacity.”
From Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. (2003) · cites this paper as Engle, Tuholski et al., 1999
In the citing paper
“the correlations among OSPAN and other WM measures, such as Reading Span (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980), approach the reliability estimates of OSPAN, itself, ranging between r = .40and r = .80”
From Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. (2003) · cites this paper as Engle, Tuholski et al., 1999
In the citing paper
“the mechanism responsible for the broad predictive power of WM span tasks is a domain-general, executive-attention mechanism that allows for the maintenance of stimulus representations, action plans, and goals in the face of interference”
From Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. (2003) · cites this paper as Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 · Cited by 12,803
The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity
Cowan, N. (2001) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x01003922 · Cited by 6,779
Working memory: Looking back and looking forward
Baddeley, A. (2003) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1201 · Cited by 5,200
Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies
Baddeley, A. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422 · Cited by 4,271
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- 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