Cited by 132Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

Working memory capacity and the scope and control of attention

Open access
Shipstead, Zach, Harrison, Tyler L., Engle, Randall W.·2015·Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

Abstract

Complex span and visual arrays are two common measures of working memory capacity that are respectively treated as measures of attention control and storage capacity. A recent analysis of these tasks concluded that (1) complex span performance has a relatively stronger relationship to fluid intelligence and (2) this is due to the requirement that people engage control processes while performing this task. The present study examines the validity of these conclusions by examining two large data sets that include a more diverse set of visual arrays tasks and several measures of attention control. We conclude that complex span and visual arrays account for similar amounts of variance in fluid intelligence. The disparity relative to the earlier analysis is attributed to the present study involving a more complete measure of the latent ability underlying the performance of visual arrays. Moreover, we find that both types of working memory task have strong relationships to attention control. This indicates that the ability to engage attention in a controlled manner is a critical aspect of working memory capacity, regardless of the type of task that is used to measure this construct.

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/s13414-015-0899-0

Cites

80 of 80 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

1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Shipstead, Zach
Venue
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Published
2015-04-25
Volume
77
Issue
6
Pages
1863-1880
ISSN
  • 1943-3921 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-393X
OpenAlex
W2064044626
Cited by
132
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 3
FWCI
24.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Attention Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-12-1-1011, N00014-12-1, N00014-12, N00014, N00014-12-1-0406)
  • Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
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, complex span, fluid intelligence, attentional control, storage capacity, latent ability
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Visual Perception, Young Adult

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