CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,679Cognitive Abilities and TestingDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

The Generality of Working Memory Capacity: A Latent-Variable Approach to Verbal and Visuospatial Memory Span and Reasoning.

Open access
Kane, Michael J., Hambrick, David Z., Tuholski, Stephen W., Wilhelm, Oliver, Payne, Tabitha W., Engle, Randall W.·2004·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A latent-variable study examined whether verbal and visuospatial working memory (WM) capacity measures reflect a primarily domain-general construct by testing 236 participants in 3 span tests each of verbal WM. visuospatial WM, verbal short-term memory (STM), and visuospatial STM. as well as in tests of verbal and spatial reasoning and general fluid intelligence (Gf). Confirmatory' factor analyses and structural equation models indicated that the WM tasks largely reflected a domain-general factor, whereas STM tasks, based on the same stimuli as the WM tasks, were much more domain specific. The WM construct was a strong predictor of Gf and a weaker predictor of domain-specific reasoning, and the reverse was true for the STM construct. The findings support a domain-general view of WM capacity, in which executive-attention processes drive the broad predictive utility of WM span measures, and domain-specific storage and rehearsal processes relate more strongly to domain-specific aspects of complex cognition.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 specific cognitive capacity measures used in our experiments are associated with domain-general capabilities that support fundamental processes such as learning, logical reasoning, abstract thought, problem solving, and creativity.

    “The speci fi c cognitive capacity measures used in our experiments are associated with domain-general capabilities that support fundamental processes such as learning, logical reasoning, abstract thought, problem solving, and creativity (e.g., Cattell 1987; Kane et al. 2004).”

    From Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity (2017) · cites this paper as Kane et al. 2004

    The General Discussion (page not provided) reports that verbal and visuospatial working-memory span tasks primarily measure a domain-general capability and that working-memory capacity is strongly correlated with fluid reasoning. The cited paper does not establish that the particular measures used in the citing experiments support learning or creativity, so the full list of processes is not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • There is a substantial domain-general component to working memory tasks.

    “There is a substantial domain-general component to such working memory tasks (e.g., Bayliss, Jarrold, Gunn, & Baddeley, 2003; Kane, Hambrick, Tuholski, Wilhelm, Payne, & Engle, 2004; Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2001) that has been interpreted as reflecting central executive function.”

    From Working memory in children with reading disabilities (2006) · cites this paper as Kane, Hambrick, Tuholski, Wilhelm, Payne, & Engle, 2004

  • Visuo-spatial tasks rely more on general attentional resources than verbal tasks.

    “Across many studies employing a wide range of paradigms, it has been shown that visuo-spatial tasks show a far greater reliance on general attentional resources than their verbal equivalents (Alloway et al., 2006; Kane et al., 2004; Morey & Miron, 2016; Pearson et al., 2014; Thompson et al., 2006).”

    From Working memory training involves learning new skills (2019) · cites this paper as Kane et al., 2004

  • There is substantial evidence that visuo-spatial STM is not domain-specific.

    “There is substantial evidence that it is not. Across many studies employing a wide range of paradigms, it has been shown that visuo-spatial tasks show a far greater reliance on general attentional resources than their verbal equivalents (Alloway et al., 2006; Kane et al., 2004; Morey & Miron, 2016; Pearson et al., 2014; Thompson et al., 2006).”

    From Working memory training involves learning new skills (2019) · cites this paper as Kane et al., 2004

  • There is not a highly developed short-term memory system for storing visuo-spatial material.

    “the conclusion of the task analysis was that there is not a highly developed STM system for storing visuo-spatial material (Alloway et al., 2006; Kane et al., 2004; Pearson et al., 2014; Thompson et al., 2006).”

    From Working memory training involves learning new skills (2019) · cites this paper as Kane et al., 2004

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 71

  1. Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2002). Individual differences in working memory within a nomological network of cognitive and perceptual speed abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 567-589.
  2. Andrade, J. (2001). Working memory in perspective. Hove, East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.
  3. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89-95). New York: Academic Press.
  4. Awh, E., Jonides, J., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (1998). Rehearsal in spatial working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 780-790.
  5. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. London: Oxford University Press.
  6. Barron's Educational Series. (2003). Barron's profiles of American colleges (25th ed.). Hauppauge, NY:
  7. Bridgman, P. W. (1945). Some general principles of operational analysis. Psychological Review, 52, 246-249.
  8. Brooks, L. R. (1968). Spatial and verbal components of the act of recall. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22, 349-369.
  9. Burke, H. R. (1958). Raven's Progressive Matrices: A review and critical evaluation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 93, 199-228.
  10. Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1988). The role of working memory in language comprehension. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 31-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  11. Carpenter, P. A., Miyake, A., & Just, M. A. (1995). Language comprehension: Sentence and discourse processing. Annual Review of Psychology, 46,91-100.
  12. Chuah, Y. M. L., & Maybery, M. T. (1999). Verbal and spatial short-term memory: Common sources of developmental change? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 7-44.
  13. Conway, A. R. A., & Kane, M. J. (2001). Capacity, control and conflict: An individual differences perspective on attentional capture. In C. Folk & B. Gibson (Eds.), Attraction, distraction and action: Multiple perspectives on attention capture (pp. 349-372). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
  14. Cowan, N., Towse, J. N., Hamilton, Z., Saults, J. S., Elliott, E. M., Lacey, J., et al. (2003). Children's working memory processes: A response-timing analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 113-132.
  15. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
  16. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1983). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 561-584.
  17. Daneman, M., & Green, I. (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 1-18.
  18. Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422-433.
  19. Daneman, M., & Tardif, T. (1987). Working memory and reading skill reexamined. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 491-508).
  20. Deary, I. J. (2000). Looking down on human intelligence: From psychometrics to the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.
  21. Deary, I. J. (2002). g and cognitive elements of information processing: An agnostic view. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? (pp. 151-181).
  22. De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357-376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  23. De Jong, R. (2001). Adult age differences in goal activation and goal maintenance. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13, 71-89.
  24. Duncan, J. (1995). Attention, intelligence, and the frontal lobes. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 721-733). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  25. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102-134). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128,309-331.
  27. Feldman Barrett, L., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (in press). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of mind. Psychological Bulletin.
  28. Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2000). Differential roles for visuospatial and verbal working memory in situation model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 61-83.
  29. Garner, W. R., Hake, H. W., & Eriksen, C. W. (1956). Operationism and the concept of perception. Psychological Review, 63, 149-159.
  30. Groeger, J. A., Field, D., & Hammond, S. M. (1999). Measuring memory span. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 359-363.
  31. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  32. Handley, S. J., Capon, A., Copp, C., & Harper, C. (2002). Conditional reasoning and the Tower of Hanoi: The role of spatial and verbal working memory. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 501-518.
  33. Henson, R. (2001). Neural working memory. In J. Andrade (Ed.), Working memory in perspective (pp. 151- 173). Hove, East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.
  34. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513-541.
  35. Jones, D., Farrand, P., Stuart, G., & Morris, N. (1995). Functional equivalence of verbal and spatial information in serial short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1008-1018.
  36. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
  37. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  38. Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169-183.
  39. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 637-671.
  40. Kellogg, C. E., & Morton, N. W. (1999). Revised Beta Examination (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
  41. Kintsch, W., Healy, A. F., Hegarty, M., Pennington, B. F., & Salthouse, T. A. (1999). Models of working memory: Eight questions and some general issues. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 412-441). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Klauer, K. C., & Stegmaier, R. (1997). Interference in immediate spatial memory: Shifts of spatial attention or central-executive involvement? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 50(A), 79-99.
  43. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
  44. Kyllonen, P. C. (1993). Aptitude testing inspired by information processing: A test of the four-sources model. Journal of General Psychology, 120, 375-405.
  45. Lustig, C., May, C. P., & Hasher, L. (2001). Working memory span and the role of proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 199-207.
  46. MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 35-54.
  47. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232.
  48. Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999a). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  49. Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999b). Toward unified theories of working memory: Emerging general consensus, unresolved theoretical issues, and future research directions. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 442-481). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Morris, N. (1987). Exploring the visuo-spatial scratch pad. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 39(A), 409-430.
  51. Nairne, J. S. (2002). Remembering over the short-term: The case against the standard model. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 53-81.
  52. Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214-255.
  53. Oberauer, K. (in press). The measurement of working memory capacity. In O. Wilhelm & R. W. Engle (Eds.), Understanding and measuring intelligence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  54. Quinn, J. G. (1994). Towards a clarification of spatial processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 47(A), 465-480.
  55. Raven, J. C., Raven, J. E., & Court, J. H. (1998). Progressive matrices. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.
  56. Richardson, J. T. E., Engle, R. W., Hasher, L., Logie, R. H., Stoltzfus, E. R., & Zacks, R. T. (1996). Working memory and human cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.
  57. Romeu, J. L., & Ozturk, A. (1993). A comparative study of goodness-of-fit tests for multivariate normality. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 46, 309-334.
  58. Salthouse, T. A. (1995). Differential age-related influences on memory for verbal-symbolic and visual-spatial information? Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 50(B), P193-P201.
  59. Salthouse, T. A. (2001). A research strategy for investigating group differences in a cognitive construct: Application to ageing and executive processes. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13, 29-46.
  60. Salthouse, T. A., Mitchell, D. R. D., Skovronek, E., & Babcock, R. L. (1989). Effects of adult age and working memory on reasoning and spatial abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 507-516.
  61. Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 4-27.
  62. Shute, V. J. (1991). Who is likely to acquire programming skills? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 1-24.
  63. A diminutive general. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? (pp. 19-37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  64. Swanson, H. L., & Howell, M. (2001). Working memory, short-term memory, and speech rate as predictors of children's reading performance at different ages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 720-734.
  65. Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2001). A subgroup analysis of working memory in children with reading disabilities: Domain-general or domain-specific deficiency? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 249-263.
  66. Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  67. Toth, J. P., & Hunt, R. R. (1999). Not one versus many, but zero versus any: Structure and function in the context of the multiple memory systems debate. In J. K. Foster & M. Jelicic (Eds.), Memory: Systems, process, or function? (pp. 233-272). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  68. Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127-154.
  69. Vallar, G., & Baddeley, A. D. (1984). Fractionation of working memory: Neuropsychological evidence for a phonological short-term store. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 151-161.
  70. Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of processing resources. In R. Nickerson & R. Pew (Eds.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 239-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  71. Wilson, K. M., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). Are mathematics disabilities due to a domain-general or a domain- specific working memory deficit? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 237-248.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2004-06
Volume
133
Issue
2
Pages
189-217
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
DOI
10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189
OpenAlex
W2048613949
Cited by
1,679
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 101 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 115 · 2018: 79 · 2017: 103 · 2016: 107 · 2015: 91 · 2014: 95 · 2013: 106 · 2012: 93
FWCI
61.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Kenyon (Kenyon College) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
working memory capacity, domain generality, verbal working memory, visuospatial working memory, short-term memory, memory span, fluid intelligence, spatial reasoning, verbal reasoning, executive attention
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Decision Making, Female, Generalization, Psychological, Humans, Male, Memory, Space Perception, Visual Perception, Vocabulary

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