Cited by 137Cognitive Abilities and TestingChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

Age differences in visual working memory capacity: not based on encoding limitations: Differences in working memory capacity

Open access
Cowan, Nelson, AuBuchon, Angela M., Gilchrist, Amanda L., Ricker, Timothy J., Saults, J. Scott·2011·Developmental Science

Abstract

Why does visual working memory performance increase with age in childhood? One recent study (Cowan et al., 2010b) ruled out the possibility that the basic cause is a tendency in young children to clutter working memory with less-relevant items (within a concurrent array, colored items presented in one of two shapes). The age differences in memory performance, however, theoretically could result from inadequate encoding of the briefly presented array items by younger children. We replicated the key part of the procedure in children 6-8 and 11-13 years old and college students (total N = 90), but with a much slower, sequential presentation of the items to ensure adequate encoding. We also required verbal responses during encoding to encourage or discourage labeling of item information. Although verbal labeling affected performance, age differences persisted across labeling conditions, further supporting the existence of a basic growth in capacity.

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 · 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01060.x

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Memorization and mental manipulation are much more delayed and take longer to develop.

    “However, memorization and mental manipulation (e.g., reordering visual representations of objects by size) are much more delayed and take longer to develop (Davidson et al., 2006; Cowan et al., 2011).”

    From Assessment of executive functions in school-aged children: A narrative review (2022) · cites this paper as Cowan et al., 2011

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that visual working-memory holding capacity increases during the elementary-school years, while younger children can allocate attention to relevant items as well as older children. That supports a developmental difference in retaining visual information, but the paper does not establish that memorization is “much more delayed” or takes longer to develop, and it does not examine mental manipulation such as reordering objects by size. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The gains in visuospatial memory were reduced by 63% with control of the central executive, phonological memory and their interaction, suggesting that strategy changes, such as phonological recoding of visual stimuli, may have contributed to these gains.

    “The gains in visuospatial memory were reduced by 63% with control of the central executive, phonological memory and their interaction, suggesting that strategy changes, such as phonological recoding of the visual stimuli, may have contributed to these gains [40], [56].”

    From Developmental Gains in Visuospatial Memory Predict Gains in Mathematics Achievement (2013) · cites this paper as [56]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 1

  1. Baddeley AD Working memory 1986 Clarendon Press Oxford, England

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cowan, N., AuBuchon, A. M., Gilchrist, A. L., Ricker, T. J., & Saults, J. S.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Cowan, Nelson
Venue
Developmental Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-06-18
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
1066-1074
ISSN
1363-755X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2166260467
Cited by
137
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
9.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Developmental Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD021338)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
visual working memory, working memory capacity, age differences, children, encoding, verbal labeling
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Aging, Attention, Child, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Young Adult

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