The DOI matches its Crossref record; 99 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
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.
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
“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
Citations
Cites
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. B
Press, H. (1886) · Cited by 10,087
Egeth, H. E., & Kahneman, D. J. (1975) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1421603 · Cited by 6,976
Anderson, J. R. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9781315799438 · Cited by 6,761
Individual differences in working memory and reading
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90312-6 · Cited by 6,336
Self-citationControlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.1.1 · Cited by 5,902
Strategies of Discourse Comprehension
Staczek, J. J., van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1985) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/326517 · Cited by 5,377
Toward a model of text comprehension and production.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.85.5.363 · Cited by 5,298
Cummins, R., & Fodor, J. A. (1985) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2184717 · Cited by 4,791
The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.
Kintsch, W. (1988) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.163 · Cited by 4,618
From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure
Shallice, T. (1988) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511526817 · Cited by 4,072
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.211 · Cited by 3,498
Situation models in language comprehension and memory
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 · Cited by 2,877
Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies
Gibson, E. (1998) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1 · Cited by 2,537
Word Knowledge in a Theory of Reading Comprehension
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.827687 · Cited by 1,362
Metadata
- Authors
- Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- ORCID
- Just, Marcel A.
- 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
