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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
100 Not checked yet · 39 Own interpretation · 7 No basis given · 2 Own result
In the paper
“Clearly, there is a steady improvement in performance from 4-15 years.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gathercole et al. (2004)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The developmental trend is similar across tests, except in two cases (visual pattern span and mazes), in which developing grouping processes may steepen the age trend as older children recode items to form a”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gathercole et al. (2004)
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There was evidence in Cowan et al. (2010), however, that the strategic filtering broke down when the number of array objects was increased to three circles and three triangles.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Attentional Filtering
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan et al. (2010)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“With those children omitted, the interaction between materials and age group was eliminated.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Increasing Knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan, Ricker et al. (2015)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It was found that the number of items of a shape included in working memory varied systematically with the attention condition: the more likely it was that a shape would be tested, the more attention was allocated to it.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Attentional Filtering
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan et al. (2010)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The basis of the interaction appeared to be that some of the children in the youngest age group did not know their letters well”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Increasing Knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan, Ricker et al. (2015)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The pattern of results in the 80% vs. 20% condition was replicated by Cowan, AuBuchon et al. (2011) using a slow, serial presentation of array items”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Attentional Filtering
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan, AuBuchon et al. (2011)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Moreover, there was an interaction between the materials and the age group.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Increasing Knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan, Ricker et al. (2015)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For arrays with only two items in the tested shape, this allocation of attention was just as good for children in the youngest age group (6-8 years, Grades 1 & 2) as it was for older children and adults.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Attentional Filtering
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan et al. (2010)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“they revealed a capacity of less than 1 English letter”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Increasing Knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan, Ricker et al. (2015)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 40
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
- Probably not a substantial claim. 23
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The top panel of the figure shows that, in all of the studies noted, there is evidence that adults yield estimates of the number of items stored in working memory that exceed the estimates for the children.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“It was true that performance was higher for English letters than for unfamiliar characters and climbed more quickly across age groups; knowledge contributed to performance profoundly.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Increasing Knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan, Ricker et al. (2015)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The initial result was that performance improved across age groups for both types of materials.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Increasing Knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan, Ricker et al. (2015)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Surprisingly, schizophrenic participants were as good as control participants at allocating attention, but nevertheless remembered far fewer bars overall.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Attentional Filtering
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gold et al. (2006)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Morey and Cowan (2004) showed this by administering an array memory task with several different secondary tasks during the retention interval between the array of colored squares and the test probe. Recitation of the participant’s own 7-digit telephone number during the retention interval had no effect on performance, whereas recitation from memory of a just-seen random 7-digit number did”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Verbal Rehearsal
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Morey and Cowan (2004)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Cowan, Saults, and Morey (2006) found effects of suppression less vulnerable to the psychometric concerns because a complex pattern of results differed between 9-10-year old children versus adults. Suppression in the adults made the pattern change strikingly to match the children’s pattern, but the adults’ results nevertheless occurred at a somewhat higher performance level.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Verbal Rehearsal
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan, Saults, and Morey (2006)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The pattern of development was essentially the same in each condition: there was no age difference in the allocation of attention that favored the 80%-tested shape over the 20%-tested shape, but there was a large developmental increase in the number of items in working memory.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Verbal Rehearsal
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan, AuBuchon et al. (2011)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Children who were 5 years old showed the same pattern only when the task required that the picture names be pronounced or when the experimenter pronounced the names.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Verbal Rehearsal
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hitch et al. (1991)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many aspects of cognition vary depending on the working memory abilities of the child, and are compromised in children with various learning or processing challenges that can affect language comprehension and production, reading, mathematics, and problem-solving”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > The Issue of Working Memory Development
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan, Elliott et al., 2005
- Not checked yetcites Cowan, 2014
- Not checked yetcites Cowan & Alloway, 2009
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“suggesting that most of the developmental change came from improvements in chunking efficiency.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dempster (1978)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Dempster (1978) created word series with low word-to-word association values to limit chunking. Whereas digits yielded a 24% increase in span during the elementary school years, the specially-constructed word set yielded only a 5% increase”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dempster (1978)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Even when children varied in their strategies for approaching a problem (e.g., Siegler, 1994), strategy selection and execution could be thought of as dependent on working memory capacity.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Siegler, 1994
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such findings were handled more gracefully by neo-Piagetian psychologists, who posited that fundamental information processing parameters like memory and processing efficiency improved with maturation.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The chunking manipulation was successful at all ages but nevertheless did not diminish age differences in performance.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Burtis (1982)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The neo-Piagetian view would promote the idea that the growth of capacity is involved even in the conceptual, behavioral, and strategic changes that occur during infancy and early childhood”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These are not trivial discrepancies and they require explanation; they have not been reconciled in previous work.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Task complexity and the memory requirements of the task clearly influenced performance on conceptual tests, a phenomenon called horizontal décalage (Piaget, 1977).”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Piaget, 1977
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The developmental trend is similar across tests, except in two cases (visual pattern span and mazes), in which developing grouping processes may steepen the age trend as older children recode items to form a”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
hedgedconditionaln = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A complex item might be converted to more than one chunk, whereas multiple, potentially related items might be combined into a single chunk.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Better information processing in turn was said to allow more complex concepts to be comprehended, harder problems to be solved, and so on”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Burtis, 1982
- Not checked yetcites Case, 1985, 1995
- Not checked yetcites Fischer, 1980
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The initial employment of a strategy that has promise may at first be cumbersome and attention-demanding, given that it is different from what the participant is used to but, with practice, the strategy can become less attention-demanding, and thus more helpful to performance (a change that has been documented for verbal rehearsal by Guttentag, 1984).”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > Development of Working Memory Capacity?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Guttentag, 1984
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The progression of infant findings suggests that object-file representations are quite basic but that the details of these objects are filled in with maturation in infancy.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > The Working Memory Capacity Growth Hypothesis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Presumably, deliberate actions that include head-turning or eye movements as well as manual movements and speech all emanate from the focus of attention.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, these toddlers did pass the surprise test measured by looking time as in the infant procedure (Hood, Cole-Davies, & Dias, 2003; Mash, Novak, Berthier, & Keen, 2006).”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > The Working Memory Capacity Growth Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hood, Cole-Davies, & Dias, 2003
- Not checked yetcites Mash, Novak, Berthier, & Keen, 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As I will discuss, the infant procedures may not elicit the deliberate route to the same degree as the adult procedures.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the first, the automatic route to action, incoming stimulation is seen to be discrepant from the neural model of prior stimulation, and it attracts attention. This can occur for stimuli for which there was no prior attention.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“there is considerable work suggesting that in individuals older than about 6 years of age, the focus of attention rapidly circulates to refresh various items in turn. The number of items that can be recalled is reduced in a linear fashion as a function of the cognitive load”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Barrouillet, Portrat, & Camos, 2011
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This point needs careful scrutiny because children in the early elementary school years, tested with the adult-like procedures, seem to remember fewer items.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > The Working Memory Capacity Growth Hypothesis
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Neurally and behaviorally the scope of attention, highly dependent on parietal areas of the brain, is said to be separate from the control of attention or central executive processes, highly dependent on frontal areas, with activated memory in various association areas (Cowan, 2011).”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > A Brief History of Working Memory Capacity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan, 2011
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It is in that sense that working memory is explicitly supposed to have a limited capacity.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > A Brief History of Working Memory Capacity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baddeley & Hitch, 1974
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“two different kinds of working memory described by Cowan (1988, 1999, 2005) are used, namely the activated subset of long-term memory, and the focus of attention”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan (1988, 1999, 2005)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Second, in the deliberate route to action, attention is governed by central executive processes.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Johnson, 1995
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, infants and young children would not be able to use the deliberate system adequately to separate the stimulus stream into discrete events, only some of which should be used to motivate the response”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Kibbe and Leslie (2011) found that when infants of 6 months see two objects disappear behind occluders, they are surprised when an occluder is raised and the object is missing, but not when the object that appears is the wrong one”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > The Working Memory Capacity Growth Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kibbe and Leslie (2011)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We can conclude that either the infants in fact retained an average of slightly under 2 items in working memory, or else a different process was used by the infants to determine when to stop withdrawing objects from the box.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > The Working Memory Capacity Growth Hypothesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Miller (1956) famously discussed the fact that there is a basic limitation in the capability of working memory, to about 7 items.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > A Brief History of Working Memory Capacity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Miller (1956)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“With lists of 3 or 4 items, short enough to be held in the focus of attention, there was very little incorrect responding on the basis of the recent lure (i.e., very little proactive interference), but much more proactive interference was obtained with longer lists of 6 or 8 items that presumably could not be held in focus.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan, Johnson, and Saults (2005)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The correspondence with adults’ capacity could be a coincidence, inasmuch as adults appear to have a capacity that actually reaches an asymptotic level closer to 3 items”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > The Working Memory Capacity Growth Hypothesis
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to another hypothesis, the proposed difference between infant and adult procedures is not in how many items can co-exist in the core part of working memory, but in how appropriately the contents can be controlled (cf. Kane & Engle, 2003), and thus the correct memoranda maintained, as the stimuli change across the experimental trial.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kane & Engle, 2003
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The developmental trend in working memory that we have seen during childhood could occur because young children are deficient compared to adults in the deliberate process of preserving items in the focus of attention while comparing them to the probe item.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
In the paper
“The pattern observed by Zosh and Feigenson (2015), in the procedure in which objects are hidden in a box and can be retrieved by the infant, also can be understood in the embedded-process view if the focus of attention can include 3 items in these infants.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zosh and Feigenson (2015)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implication is that even 6-month-old children have rudimentary multiple-object representations, but not including the details of the individual objects.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > The Working Memory Capacity Growth Hypothesis
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to this information-maintenance hypothesis, infants of 8 or 9 months are already able to focus attention on 3 items and establish the corresponding activation of their features in memory.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A complex item like a Chinese character or colored shape may require multiple chunks.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Theoretical and Empirical Background > A Brief History of Working Memory Capacity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They examined the ability to recall lists of ordinary, spoken, English words, and the speed of repetition of individual words within the set, finding both measures to be poorer in the children 3-6 years old than in young adults. However, when adults received unfamiliar nonsense words instead of English words, their performance on both measures resembled the children with English word stimuli.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Increasing Knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Case et al. (1982)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Camos and Barrouillet (2011) found, moreover, that at age 6 and below the cognitive load relation did not hold and, instead, information was lost as a function of time rather than cognitive load”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Camos and Barrouillet (2011)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the similarity in apparent working memory capacity of infants and adults is born out, then there is no room to anticipate developmental changes in capacity during childhood. Instead, the childhood development would have to be related to how children handle the additional demands that the adult-like procedures entail (presumably, control of working memory contents).”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding suggested that the operational efficiency of working memory increases with familiarity with the materials, presumably accounting for the developmental increase in working memory performance.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Increasing Knowledge
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, low-span adults apparently did not filter out the irrelevant items when the arrays were presented and showed a pattern of brain activity that was similar for, on one hand, 2 relevant items presented along with 2 irrelevant items and, on the other hand, 4 relevant items presented alone.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Attentional Filtering
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vogel et al. (2005)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“That measure showed about .80 chunk integrity in each age group, so the developmental improvement in memory could not be explained by a change across age groups in chunk integrity.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Increasing Knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gilchrist, Cowan, and Naveh-Benjamin (2009)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding suggests that refreshing rate is a major basis of age differences in working memory, and it could be the basis of controlled memory maintenance.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > From Infancy to Childhood: Growth and Changing Task Demands > Hypothesis of Control: Automatic and Deliberate Maintenance in Working Memory
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Chi (1978) showed that knowledge is critically important for working memory. Children (third through eighth grade, mean age 10.5 years) who were expert at chess were better able to remember chess board configurations than were naive adults, even though the usual adult superiority emerged for memory of lists of digits.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Increasing Knowledge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chi (1978)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It does not appear that the speed of encoding or consolidation can explain the age difference in the number of items stored in working memory in this procedure; the pattern of results was unchanged by the slow, serial presentation.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Encoding and Consolidation of Items in Working Memory
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Apparently, older participants have a more precise representation of the spatial layout of the studied array, and this extra context helps them locate items in the array and makes the contextual markers unnecessary to identify a probe object’s location in the array (cf. Burnett Heyes et al., 2012).”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of the Reinstatement of Context
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Burnett Heyes et al., 2012
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, although spatial configuration does improve with development, there is an important component of visual working memory development that cannot be attributed to configuration.”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of the Reinstatement of Context
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thus, processing and storage shared a resource but processing efficiency was the result of a working memory difference between age groups, not the direct cause of one”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Attentional Filtering
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cusack, Lehmann, Veldsman, & Mitchell, 2009
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This was taken as evidence that the array is not transformed to a verbal form for retention, but that both the visual array and a random 7-digit number require a common pool of attention for their retention (for related evidence of a common attentional resource for verbal and visual processing, see Vergauwe et al., 2009).”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Verbal Rehearsal
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vergauwe et al., 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“WM capacitythat is, the maximum amount of information that WM can store and manipulate -steadily increases throughout infancy and childhood up to adolescence (Cowan, 2016;Gathercole, Pickering, Ambridge, & Wearing, 2004), both due to maturation and increase in knowledge (Cowan, 2016;Jones, Gobet, & Pine, 2007).”
From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Cowan, 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of the Reinstatement of Context
“(e.g., Brady & Tenenbaum, 2013; Jiang, Olsun, & Chun, 2000; Woodman, Vecera, & Luck, 2003; Xu & Chun, 2007)”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > References
“94. Jiang Y Olson IR Chun MM Organization of visual short-term memory Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 2000 26 683 702 10855426”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > Development throughout the School Years: Controlling Confounding Factors > The Factor of Verbal Rehearsal
“(Jarrold & Citroën, 2012; Jarrold & Hall, 2013)”
§ Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get At the Essence of Cognitive Growth? > References
“91. Jarrold C Citroën R Reevaluating key evidence for the development of rehearsal: Phonological similarity effects in children are subject to proportional scaling artifacts Developmental Psychology 2013 49 837 847 22662766”
Citations
Cites
James, W. (1891) · Personality Culture Society · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,876
A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity
McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943) · The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics · doi:10.1007/bf02478259 · Cited by 18,566
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812 · cited 2×
“Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior.”
BackgroundThe magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.343 · Cited by 17,559
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60452-1 · Cited by 9,860
The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity
Cowan, N. (2001) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x01003922 · Cited by 6,779 · cited 4×
“However, a chunk capacity limit can be obtained rather cleanly by curtailing articulatory processing, in which case adults can retain typically only three or four chunks (Chen & Cowan, 2009; Cowan, 2001; Cowan, Rouder, Blume, & Saults, 2012).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationDynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood through early adulthood
Gogtay, N., Giedd, J. N., Lusk, L., Hayashi, K. M., Greenstein, D., Vaituzis, A. C., Nugent, T. F., Herman, D. H., Clasen, L. S., Toga, A. W., et al. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0402680101 · Cited by 5,604
Plans and the structure of behavior.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960) · doi:10.1037/10039-000 · Cited by 4,630
The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions
Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/36846 · Cited by 4,265
The information available in brief visual presentations
Sperling, G. (1960) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0093759 · Cited by 4,042 · cited 2×
“Some work, going back at least to Sperling (1960) and Phillips (1974), has focused on the transfer of information from visual sensory memory into a capacity-limited type of memory.”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Baddeley A. D., 1986, Working memory
- Chi M. T. H., 1978, Children’s thinking: What develops?, 73
- Ebbinghaus H., 1913, Ueber das gedächtnis: Untersuchen zur experimentellen psychologie
- 10.1073/pnas.0402680101 · DOI · Paper page
- Kahn J. V., 1976, American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 80, 663
- Marti E., 2012, After Piaget
- Pascual-Leone J., 2011, Cognitive development and working memory: From neoPiagetian to cognitive approaches, 13
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–238 of 238
Bao, C., Li, Y., & Cowan, N. (2025) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106163
Self-citationKim, S. Y., Yang, W. F. Z., Jiwani, Z., et al. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.67506
Gerard, J., & McDaniel, D. (2025) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2025.104662
Ren, T., Ding, X., & Cheng, C. (2025) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.70066
“…for cognitive development in children (Bayliss et al. 2003; Holmes et al. 2010), as it supports a wide range of cognitive functions that are essential for academic and social success (Bull et al. 2008; Cowan 2014, 2016; Geary 2011; Gray et al. 2017, 2019; Jarrold and Towse 2006; Menon 2016).”
Byrnes, D., & Was, C. A. (2025) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2025.103922 · Cited by 1
Morin, A. H., Wichstrøm, L., Steinsbekk, S., Stokke, S. S., Skalicka, V., & Stenseng, F. (2026) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2026.102467
Using LLAMA_B as a predictor of L2 vocabulary learning by young learners
Muñoz, C., & de Apodaca, A. R. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103921
Akkaya, İ., & Öge‐Daşdöğen, Ö. (2025) · Journal of Fluency Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2025.106169
Li, C., & Chen, J. (2025) · International Symposium on Computer and Information Processing Technology (ISCIPT) · doi:10.1109/iscipt67144.2025.11265684
Factors in Variable Outcomes in Second Language Acquisition
Birdsong, D. P. (2025) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009202336.016
Building Cognitive Brain Reserve and the Importance of Proficiency
Andrews, E., & Kiran, S. (2025) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009202336.014
Variations of Language Representations in the Brain
Andrews, E., & Kiran, S. (2025) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009202336.013
The Influence of Motor Development on Cognitive Development in Children
Goda, A., Murata, S., Kai, Y., Shigeto, H., Kikuchi, Y., Miyachi, R., Yumioka, M., & Abiko, T. (2025) · Japanese Journal of Health Promotion and Physical Therapy · doi:10.9759/hppt.15.1
Low and high control working memory and counting skills in children
López, D. F. G., Murillo, S., Echeverry, E. A. M., & Garcia, Z. (2026) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2026.101670
Internal manipulation of working memory: Developmental differences in early childhood
Liu, G., & Li, F. (2026) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2026.101697
A compression account of development in the ability to group information in working memory
Debraise, M., Fartoukh, M., Friedman, O., Vanni, L., & Mathy, F. (2026) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2026.106507
Why and how to study working memory development
Cowan, N. (2020) · L’Année psychologique · doi:10.3917/e.anpsy1.202.0135
Self-citationThe rate of forgetting over time in working memory during early childhood
Bertrand, R., Stan-Zahno, I., & Camos, V. (2020) · L’Année psychologique · doi:10.3917/e.anpsy1.202.0157
Vergauwe, E., & Langerock, N. (2026) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1080/15248372.2026.2649214
Impact de l'épilepsie sur les fonctions exécutives et attentionnelles à l'âge préscolaire
Breuillard, D. (2020) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/70cb3bd1z80aaz461dz910ez278c69b52b51
Le temps "agi" : rôle de l'action dans le développement des conduites temporelles
Monier, F. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/95469b29zcb9cz42cczb018z1f5258b1dadb
Song, Y., & Cheng, C. (2026) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.70069
Leroux, M. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/d51b586bz96daz4ecbzbac2zc54c3576aef2
Ishida, Y., & Chung, I. (2026) · Journal of Special Education Research · doi:10.6033/specialeducation.24-o002
Montford, C., & Hogeveen, J. (2026) · bioRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.05.01.722218
“For example, it has been argued that inhibitory control plateaus in late childhood and early adolescence, while working memory and cognitive flexibility continue to mature into late adolescence / early adulthood (Cowan, 2016; Cragg, 2016; Luna et al., 2004).”
Working Memory Profiles of English Monolinguals and Spanish–English Bilinguals
Shen, Y., & Hwang, H. (2026) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2026_jslhr-25-00619
Zhao, L., Chan, S. W. Y., & Dong, S. (2026) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2026.102925
The relation between attention, inhibitory control and spatial working memory in 3- and 4-year-olds
Wu, Y., & Schutte, A. R. (2026) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2026.101744
What is working memory for? An ethological approach to working memory in children and adults
Koolhaas, C., Blaser, E., & Káldy, Z. (2026) · Advances in child development and behavior · doi:10.1016/bs.acdb.2026.07.001
Perry, O., Jaffe, E., & Bitan, Y. (2026) · Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · doi:10.1177/2327857926151294
Song, H., & Hu, D. (2026) · International Conference on Computer Science and Technologies in Education (CSTE) · doi:10.1109/cste69562.2026.11649760
“For K– 12 students, whose CT is limited by working memory and metacognition (Cowan, 2016) [27] , AI should offer structured frameworks.”
Andrea, K., & Fodor, L. A. (2026) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2026.106612
Wong-Si-Kwie, S.-M., Kohler, R., Riley, S., Rodriguez, L., Babaeianjelodar, M., Cheng, A., Horien, C., Greene, A., Constable, R., Yip, S., et al. (2026) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2026.101823
“Nonetheless, both working memory (Cowan, 2016) and emotion regulation (Silvers, 2022) are known to evolve and improve throughout adolescence.”
Introzzi, I. M., Musso, M., Aydmune, Y. S., Villaroia, M. G., Ferreyra, F. A., Punta, J. A. D., Gasaneo, G., & Richard’s, M. M. (2026) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1080/15248372.2026.2735258
Robertson‐Benta, C. R., & Hogeveen, J. (2026) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2026.107014
Metadata
- Authors
- Cowan, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cowan, Nelson
- ORCID
- Cowan, Nelson
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-03
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 239-264
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- PMC
- PMC4800832
- OpenAlex
- W2298970181
- Semantic Scholar
- 3bcc44025be345138a8c741256cdfdbfc906e234
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
