Cited by 4,153Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismCognitive Abilities and TestingReading and Literacy Development

A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory

Just, Marcel A., Carpenter, Patricia A.·1992·Psychological Review

Abstract

A theory of the way working memory capacity constrains comprehension is proposed. The theory proposes that both processing and storage are mediated by activation and that the total amount of activation available in working memory varies among individuals. Individual differences in working memory capacity for language can account for qualitative and quantitative differences among college-age adults in several aspects of language comprehension. One aspect is syntactic modularity: The larger capacity of some individuals permits interaction among syntactic and pragmatic information, so that their syntactic processes are not informationally encapsulated. Another aspect is syntactic ambiguity: The larger capacity of some individuals permits them to maintain multiple interpretations. The theory is instantiated as a production system model in which the amount of activation available to the model affects how it adapts to the transient computational and storage demands that occur in comprehension.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The Canadian working memory model emphasizes the trade-off between storage and processing, as evidenced by its operationalization, which measures working memory capacity as sentence span, where sentences have to be comprehended and evaluated for meaning while a verbal storage load (the last word of each sentence) steadily increases in magnitude.

    “emphasizes the trade-off between storage and processing, as is evidenced by its operationalization, which measures working memory capacity as sentence span, where sentences have to be comprehended and evaluated for meaning while a verbal storage load ~the last word of each sentence!steadily increases in magnitude+”

    From AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE (2005) · cites this paper as Just & Carpenter, 1992

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
1992
Volume
99
Issue
1
Pages
122-149
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2072875864
Cited by
4,153
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 105 · 2025: 90 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 98 · 2022: 104 · 2021: 135 · 2020: 170 · 2019: 144 · 2018: 151 · 2017: 140 · 2016: 155 · 2015: 212 · 2014: 181 · 2013: 156 · 2012: 168
FWCI
25.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KiltHub Repository (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH 00661, MH-29617, R01MH029617, MH 00662)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
working memory capacity, language comprehension, individual differences, activation theory, syntactic ambiguity, pragmatic interpretation, production system modeling, information encapsulation, multiple interpretations
MeSH terms
Concept Formation, Humans, Individuality, Problem Solving, Mental Recall, Retention, Psychology, Semantics, Thinking, Verbal Learning

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