Cited by 180Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Individual differences in working memory capacity and divided attention in dichotic listening

Open access
Colflesh, Gregory J. H., Conway, Andrew R. A.·2007·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Abstract

The controlled attention theory of working memory suggests that individuals with greater working memory capacity (WMC) are better able to control or focus their attention than individuals with lesser WMC. This relationship has been observed in a number of selective attention paradigms including a dichotic listening task (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001) in which participants were required to shadow words presented to one ear and ignore words presented to the other ear. Conway et al. found that when the participant's name was presented to the ignored ear, 65% of participants with low WMC reported hearing their name, compared to only 20% of participants with high WMC, suggesting greater selective attention on the part of high WMC participants. In the present study, individual differences in divided attention were examined in a dichotic listening task, in which participants shadowed one message and listened for their own name in the other message. Here we find that 66.7% of high WMC and 34.5% of low WMC participants detected their name. These results suggest that as WMC capacity increases, so does the ability to control the focus of attention, with high WMC participants being able to flexibly "zoom in" or "zoom out" depending on task demands.

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 · 10.3758/bf03196824

Cites

15 of 15 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Colflesh, G. J. H., & Conway, A. R. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
Colflesh, Gregory J. H.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2007-08
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
699-703
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
OpenAlex
W2022667221
Cited by
180
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 15
FWCI
7.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • University of Illinois at Chicago
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 capacity, divided attention, dichotic listening, selective attention, individual differences, auditory attention, attentional flexibility
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Dichotic Listening Tests, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, 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.

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