Cited by 74Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Why is working memory capacity related to matrix reasoning tasks?

Harrison, Tyler L., Shipstead, Zach, Engle, Randall W.·2015·Memory & Cognition

Abstract

One of the reasons why working memory capacity is so widely researched is its substantial relationship with fluid intelligence. Although this relationship has been found in numerous studies, researchers have been unable to provide a conclusive answer as to why the two constructs are related. In a recent study, researchers examined which attributes of Raven's Progressive Matrices were most strongly linked with working memory capacity (Wiley, Jarosz, Cushen, & Colflesh, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 256-263, 2011). In that study, Raven's problems that required a novel combination of rules to solve were more strongly correlated with working memory capacity than were problems that did not. In the present study, we wanted to conceptually replicate the Wiley et al. results while controlling for a few potential confounds. Thus, we experimentally manipulated whether a problem required a novel combination of rules and found that repeated-rule-combination problems were more strongly related to working memory capacity than were novel-rule-combination problems. The relationship to other measures of fluid intelligence did not change based on whether the problem required a novel rule combination.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13421-014-0473-3

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Recent evidence indicates that the relationship between WM capacity and Matrix Reasoning can be explained by individuals' ability to maintain how they solved previous problems in memory.

    “Recent evidence also challenges these accounts, showing that the relationship between WM capacity and Matrix Reasoning can be explained by individuals’ ability to maintain how they solved previous problems in memory48.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harrison, T. L., Shipstead, Z., & Engle, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Harrison, Tyler L.
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Published
2014-10-21
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
389-396
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
OpenAlex
W1995627715
Cited by
74
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5
FWCI
11.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
working memory capacity, fluid intelligence, Raven's Progressive Matrices, matrix reasoning, rule combination, conceptual replication
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Intelligence, Memory, Short-Term, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Problem Solving, Thinking, 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