Cited by 473Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

What is working memory capacity, and how can we measure it?

Open access
Wilhelm, Oliver, Hildebrandt, Andrea, Oberauer, Klaus·2013·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

A latent variable study examined whether different classes of working-memory tasks measure the same general construct of working-memory capacity (WMC). Data from 270 subjects were used to examine the relationship between Binding, Updating, Recall-N-back, and Complex Span tasks, and the relations of WMC with secondary memory measures, indicators of cognitive control from two response-conflict paradigms (Simon task and Eriksen flanker task), and fluid intelligence. Confirmatory factor analyses support the concept of a general WMC factor. Results from structural-equation modeling show negligible relations of WMC with response-conflict resolution, and very strong relations of WMC with secondary memory and fluid intelligence. The findings support the hypothesis that individual differences in WMC reflect the ability to build, maintain and update arbitrary bindings.

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.2013.00433

Cites

78 of 78 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?

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: 2

  1. Allison P. D. (2001). Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
  2. Keye D. Wilhelm O. Oberauer K. van Ravenzwaaij D. (2010). Erratum. Individual differences in conflict-monitoring: testing means and covariance hypothesis about the Simon and the Eriksen Flanker task. Psychol. Res. 74, 237– 238 10.1007/s00426-008-0188-9 19034502 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilhelm, O., Hildebrandt, A., & Oberauer, K.
Affiliations
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Wilhelm, Oliver
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2013
Volume
4
Pages
433-433
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2115768836
Cited by
468
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 2
FWCI
20.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • OPen Access Repositorium der Universität Ulm (OPARU) (Ulm University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • edoc Publication server (Humboldt University of Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Universität Ulm, Kommunikations- und Informationszentrum (kiz) (cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
working memory capacity, latent constructs, binding, updating, complex span, secondary memory, cognitive control, response conflict, Simon task, flanker task, fluid intelligence, individual differences

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