Cited by 276Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

About the Distinction between Working Memory and Short-Term Memory

Open access
Aben, Bart, Stapert, Sven, Blokland, Arjan·2012·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

The theoretical concepts short-term memory (STM) and working memory (WM) have been used to refer to the maintenance and the maintenance plus manipulation of information, respectively. Although they are conceptually different, the use of the terms STM and WM in literature is not always strict. STM and WM are different theoretical concepts that are assumed to reflect different cognitive functions. However, correlational studies have not been able to separate both constructs consistently and there is evidence for a large or even complete overlap. The emerging view from neurobiological studies is partly different, although there are conceptual problems troubling the interpretation of findings. In this regard, there is a crucial role for the tasks that are used to measure STM or WM (simple and complex span tasks, respectively) and for the cognitive load reflected by factors like attention and processing speed that may covary between and within these tasks. These conceptual issues are discussed based on several abstract models for the relation between STM and WM.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00301

Cites

70 of 75 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?

  • Span performance primarily reflects storage/maintenance, whereas updating reflects maintenance plus additional manipulation/control components.

    “Latent-variable and theoretical evidence suggests that span performance primarily reflects storage/maintenance, whereas updating reflects maintenance plus additional manipulation/control components (Aben et al., 2012; Burgoyne et al., 2025).”

    From The asymmetry of working memory training transfer: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Aben et al., 2012

    In “Simple Span Versus Complex Span” (page unavailable), the paper describes simple span tasks as primarily involving maintenance and lists n-back among working-memory tasks involving maintenance and manipulation. It also says span tasks are not process-pure: complex spans add processing demands, so the claim that span performance generally reflects storage or maintenance is too broad. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The cognitive operations and neural correlates of both span and updating paradigms are relatively well characterized.

    “This design reduced conceptual heterogeneity and strengthened interpretability because the cognitive operations and neural correlates of both paradigms are relatively well characterized (Aben et al., 2012; Burgoyne et al., 2025).”

    From The asymmetry of working memory training transfer: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Aben et al., 2012

    The Simple Span Versus Complex Span section describes what span and n-back tasks require, and Neurobiological Findings discusses brain activity during memory tasks, including n-back. But the paper cautions that these tasks are not process-pure, that their underlying constructs are not well established, and that imaging findings are difficult to interpret. It therefore does not fully support the claim that the operations and neural correlates of both paradigms are relatively well characterized. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aben, B., Stapert, S., & Blokland, A.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Aben, Bart
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2012
Volume
3
Pages
301-301
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158587692
Cited by
275
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
working memory, short-term memory, information manipulation, cognitive load, attention, processing speed, conceptual distinction, neurobiological model

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