CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 71Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Abilities and TestingReading and Literacy Development

Strategy use in the reading span test: An analysis of eye movements and reported encoding strategies

Kaakinen, Johanna K., Hyönä, Jukka·2007·Memory
DOI 10.1080/09658210701457096
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Strategy use in the traditional reading span test was examined by recording participants' eye movements during the task (Experiment 1) and by interviewing participants about their strategy use (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, no differences between individuals with a low, medium, and high span were observed in how they distributed processing time between task elements. In all three groups, fixation times on words up to the to-be-remembered (TBR) word became shorter and the time spent on the TBR longer as memory load in the task increased. The results of Experiment 2, however, show that span groups differ in the use of memory encoding strategies: individuals with a low span use mainly rehearsal, whereas individuals with a high span use almost exclusively semantic elaboration. The results indicate that the use of elaborative strategies may enhance span performance but that not all individuals are necessarily able to use such strategies efficiently.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09658210701457096

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Use of internally generated strategies as measured by self-reports has been found to be related to better complex span performance in several studies.

    “Besides practice with an externally provided strategy, also the use of internally generated strategies as measured by self-reports has been found to be related to better complex span performance in several studies9,10,14–16.”

    From The early effects of external and internal strategies on working memory updating training (2018) · cites this paper as [16]

  • The present results using the n-back paradigm align well with previous findings that explicit WM strategy instruction can be effective and that self-generated WM strategies are associated with higher task performance.

    “The present results using the n-back paradigm align well with previous findings mainly from complex span studies that have indicated that explicit WM strategy instruction can be effective10–13, and that self-generated WM strategies are associated with higher task performance9,10,14–16.”

    From The early effects of external and internal strategies on working memory updating training (2018) · cites this paper as [16]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J.
Affiliations
University of Turku (FI)
Corresponding author
Kaakinen, Johanna K.
ORCID
Venue
Memory
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2007-08
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
634-646
ISSN
  • 0965-8211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0686
DOI
10.1080/09658210701457096
OpenAlex
W2112854335
Cited by
69
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Memory (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
reading span, working memory, eye movements, memory encoding strategies, rehearsal, semantic elaboration, memory load, fixation duration
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Eye Movements, Fixation, Ocular, Humans, Memory, Neuropsychological Tests, Reaction Time, Reading

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