Cited by 238Cognitive Abilities and TestingChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 191 of the 199 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 129 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get at the Essence of Cognitive Growth?

Open access
Cowan, Nelson·2016·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

The theoretical and practical understanding of cognitive development depends on working memory, the limited information temporarily accessible for such daily activities as language processing and problem solving. In this article, I assess many possible reasons that working memory performance improves with development. A first glance at the literature leads to the weird impression that working memory capacity reaches adult levels during infancy but then regresses during childhood. In place of that unlikely explanation, I consider how infant studies may lead to overestimates of capacity if one neglects supports that the tasks provide, compared with adult-level tasks. Further development of working memory during the school years is also considered. Many investigators have come to suspect that working memory capacity may be constant after infancy because of various factors such as developmental increases in knowledge, filtering out of irrelevant distractions, encoding and rehearsal strategies, and pattern formation. With each of these factors controlled, though, working memory still improves during the school years. Suggestions are made for research to bridge the gap between infant and child developmental research, to understand the focus and control of attention in working memory and how these skills develop, and to pinpoint the nature of capacity and its development from infancy forward.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review argues that working memory improves from infancy through the school years, but the apparent adult-like capacity in infancy likely reflects task supports rather than true capacity. It concludes that controlling knowledge, filtering, encoding, rehearsal, and context does not eliminate childhood working-memory gains, leaving capacity growth and attention-control growth as unresolved alternatives.

Key findings

  • Working memory performance improves steadily from 4 to 15 years across many span and complex-span tasks (Gathercole et al., 2004; Figure 1).
  • Infant studies suggest 10-month-olds can detect changes in 4-item arrays but not 5-item arrays, and 8-month-olds remember two unique objects with novelty looking around .60; however, these may overestimate capacity because infant procedures provide supports such as familiarity comparison.
  • With confounds controlled, age differences remain: for 8 unrelated sentences, chunk access increased from about 2.5 chunks in first-grade children to about 3.5 chunks in adults, and visual array capacity improved across grades for both English letters and unfamiliar characters.
  • The review cannot decide whether development is due to increased capacity (number of chunks/slots) or improved attention control/maintenance; both remain viable.

Methods

  • Narrative/theoretical review of behavioral and developmental working memory literature, covering infancy and the school years.
  • Reanalyzes published means (e.g., Gathercole et al., 2004, Table 1) to estimate number of items recalled, and compares studies that control knowledge, filtering, encoding/consolidation, rehearsal, and context.
  • Uses capacity estimates such as Cowan’s k = S(h − f) and reviews infant looking/search procedures.

Limitations

  • Stated: the capacity-growth hypothesis can seem like a “glorified null hypothesis”; the fundamental question of whether infants and adults have equivalent capacity cannot yet be answered; infant and child procedures are not directly comparable and need bridging research.
  • Stated: infant procedures may overestimate capacity by neglecting task supports, while adult-like procedures may impose greater deliberate maintenance/control demands.
  • Evident: as a review, it reports no new primary data and relies on cross-study comparisons; many conclusions depend on interpreting disparate tasks and age groups.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691615621279

Cites

191 of 191 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

100 Not checked yet · 39 Own interpretation · 7 No basis given · 2 Own result

Verify all 129 references — free account

Show all 91 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 40
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 23
57 of 57
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Many processes probably play some role in working memory performance.

    “there is less concern here about which processes play some role in performance, and more of an assumption that many such processes probably do so.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Manual responses in preverbal infants can be deliberate and based on central executive processes.

    “it is assumed here that manual responses in preverbal infants also can be deliberate and based on central executive processes”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the adult array change-detection procedure, memory can be accumulated across more than one trial.

    “if we assume that memory can be accumulated across more than one trial”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In Gilchrist et al. (2009), each sentence would typically be represented as a single chunk, but sentence-long chunks would be retained separately in working memory.

    “It was supposed that each sentence would typically be represented as a single chunk, but that the sentence-long chunks would be retained separately in working memory.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    On most trials in the Zosh and Feigenson procedure, 3 items are in working memory.

    “On most trials in which it is assumed that 3 items are in working memory”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    An individual has k items in working memory on each trial; if the array item at the probed location is in working memory, the individual knows whether the probe differs from the corresponding array item; if the item is not known, the participant must guess.

    “The formula was based on the assumption that an individual has k items in working memory on each trial and, if the array item at the probed location is in working memory, the individual knows whether the probe differs from the corresponding array item. If the item is not known, the participant must guess.”
6 of 6

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 199 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Baddeley A. D., 1986, Working memory
  2. Chi M. T. H., 1978, Children’s thinking: What develops?, 73
  3. Ebbinghaus H., 1913, Ueber das gedächtnis: Untersuchen zur experimentellen psychologie
  4. 10.1073/pnas.0402680101 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Kahn J. V., 1976, American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 80, 663
  6. Marti E., 2012, After Piaget
  7. Pascual-Leone J., 2011, Cognitive development and working memory: From neoPiagetian to cognitive approaches, 13

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cowan, N.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Cowan, Nelson
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2016-03
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
239-264
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W2298970181
Cited by
225
References
199
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 3
FWCI
23.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
working memory, cognitive development, working memory capacity, infancy, childhood, attentional control, pattern formation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child Development, Psychology, Child, Child, Preschool, Humans, Infant, Memory, Short-Term

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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