The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology
Abstract
Working memory limits are best defined in terms of the complexity of the relations that can be processed in parallel. Complexity is defined as the number of related dimensions or sources of variation. A unary relation has one argument and one source of variation; its argument can be instantiated in only one way at a time. A binary relation has two arguments, two sources of variation, and two instantiations, and so on. Dimensionality is related to the number of chunks, because both attributes on dimensions and chunks are independent units of information of arbitrary size. Studies of working memory limits suggest that there is a soft limit corresponding to the parallel processing of one quaternary relation. More complex concepts are processed by “segmentation” or “conceptual chunking.” In segmentation, tasks are broken into components that do not exceed processing capacity and can be processed serially. In conceptual chunking, representations are “collapsed” to reduce their dimensionality and hence their processing load, but at the cost of making some relational information inaccessible. Neural net models of relational representations show that relations with more arguments have a higher computational cost that coincides with experimental findings on higher processing loads in humans. Relational complexity is related to processing load in reasoning and sentence comprehension and can distinguish between the capacities of higher species. The complexity of relations processed by children increases with age. Implications for neural net models and theories of cognition and cognitive development are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Wimmer, H. (1983) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5 · Cited by 6,305
The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition
Salthouse, T. A. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.403 · Cited by 5,902
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 · Cited by 4,479
A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122 · Cited by 4,153
Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis
Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(88)90031-5 · Cited by 4,022
Schema induction and analogical transfer
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6 · Cited by 3,010 · cited 1×
“Analogy is a structure-preserving map between a base or source and a target, and representation of relations is at the core of analogies (Gentner 1983; Gick & Holyoak 1983; Holyoak & Thagard 1989).”
BackgroundOn data-limited and resource-limited processes
Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. (1975) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90004-3 · Cited by 2,403
Temporal dynamics of brain activation during a working memory task
Cohen, J. D., Perlstein, W. M., Braver, T. S., Nystrom, L. E., Noll, D. C., Jonides, J., & Smith, E. E. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/386604a0 · Cited by 1,876
Posner, M. I., & Boies, S. J. (1971) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0031333 · Cited by 1,751
Smolensky, P. (1990) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(90)90007-m · Cited by 959
Theory of mind and rule-based reasoning
Frye, D., Zelazo, P. D., & Palfai, T. (1995) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/0885-2014(95)90024-1 · Cited by 923
Processing speed as a mental capacity
Kail, R., & Salthouse, T. A. (1994) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/0001-6918(94)90003-5 · Cited by 850
Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi
Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(85)90009-x · Cited by 722
When two sensory modes are better than one.
Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/1076-898x.3.4.257 · Cited by 559
Development of expertise in mathematical problem solving.
Sweller, J., Mawer, R. F., & Ward, M. R. (1983) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.112.4.639 · Cited by 258
Processing time declines exponentially during childhood and adolescence
Kail, R. (1991) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.2.259 · Cited by 168
Cited by
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
Darwin's mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds
Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2008) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x08003543 · Cited by 1,174
On the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive aptitudes
Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Scott Saults, J., Morey, C. C., Mattox, S., Hismjatullina, A., & Conway, A. R. A. (2005) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.12.001 · Cited by 1,144
State of science: mental workload in ergonomics
Young, M. S., Brookhuis, K. A., Wickens, C. D., & Hancock, P. A. (2015) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.956151 · Cited by 948
Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and Dual-Process Theories of the Mind.
Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553 · Cited by 913
Metadata
- Authors
- Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S.
- Venue
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1998-12
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 803-831
- ISSN
- 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1825
- OpenAlex
- W1975346989
- Cited by
- 912
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 24.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
