Cited by 60Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

The contribution of working memory to fluid reasoning: Capacity, control, or both?

Open access
Chuderski, Adam, Necka, Edward·2012·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

Abstract

Fluid reasoning shares a large part of its variance with working memory capacity (WMC). The literature on working memory (WM) suggests that the capacity of the focus of attention responsible for simultaneous maintenance and integration of information within WM, as well as the effectiveness of executive control exerted over WM, determines individual variation in both WMC and reasoning. In 6 experiments, we used a modified n-back task to test the amount of variance in reasoning that is accounted for by each of these 2 theoretical constructs. The capacity of the focus accounted for up to 62% of variance in fluid reasoning, while the recognition of stimuli encoded outside of the focus was not related to reasoning ability. Executive control, measured as the ability to reject distractors identical to targets but presented in improper contexts, accounted for up to 13% of reasoning variance. Multiple analyses indicated that capacity and control predicted non-overlapping amounts of variance in reasoning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0028465

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • These results imply that N-back training does not merely enhance task-specific strategies but may change underlying WM components such as focus of attention capacity or updating, which can support Matrix Reasoning.

    “These results imply that N-back training does not seem to merely enhance task-specific strategies, but may lead to changes in underlying components of WM such as the capacity of the focus of attention41 or updating42, which in turn can support performance on Matrix Reasoning problems43.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chuderski, A., & Necka, E.
Affiliations
Jagiellonian University (PL)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Published
2012
Volume
38
Issue
6
Pages
1689-1710
ISSN
  • 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1285
OpenAlex
W2135800811
Cited by
60
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5
FWCI
6.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Homo Politicus (Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Sponsor name not included (N106 2857/32)
  • National Science Centre of Poland (N106 417140)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
fluid reasoning, working memory capacity, executive function, attentional focus, n-back task, individual differences, distractor rejection, cognitive architecture
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Photic Stimulation, Problem Solving, Reaction Time, Young Adult, Executive Function

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