CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 336Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How to measure working memory capacity in the change detection paradigm

Open access
Rouder, Jeffrey N., Morey, Richard D., Morey, Candice C., Cowan, Nelson·2011·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
DOI 10.3758/s13423-011-0055-3PMC PMC3070885
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Although the measurement of working memory capacity is crucial to understanding working memory and its interaction with other cognitive faculties, there are inconsistencies in the literature on how to measure capacity. We address the measurement in the change detection paradigm, popularized by Luck and Vogel (Nature, 390, 279-281, 1997). Two measures for this task-from Pashler (Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 369-378, 1988) and Cowan (The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87-114, 2001), respectively-have been used interchangeably, even though they may yield qualitatively different conclusions. We show that the choice between these two measures is not arbitrary. Although they are motivated by the same underlying discrete-slots working memory model, each is applicable only to a specific task; the two are never interchangeable. In the course of deriving these measures, we discuss subtle but consequential flaws in the underlying discrete-slots model. These flaws motivate revision in the modal model and capacity measures.

Overview

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/s13423-011-0055-3

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Change detection paradigms. In both paradigms, participants briefly study a set of objects and, after a brief delay, are tested. a Single-probe recognition. b Whole-display recognition
Fig. 1 Change detection paradigms. In both paradigms, participants briefly study a set of objects and, after a brief delay, are tested. a Single-probe recognition. b Whole-display recognitionCC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Conclusions about capacity depend on the choice of estimate. a Averaged hit and false alarm rates as a function of set size from Cowan et al. (2006). b Averaged Pashler ({\widehat{k}_p}) and Cowan ({\widehat{k}_c}) estimates. The Cowan measure yields an invariance of capacity with set size; the Pashler measure yields a dependence
Fig. 2 Conclusions about capacity depend on the choice of estimate. a Averaged hit and false alarm rates as a function of set size from Cowan et al. (2006). b Averaged Pashler ({\widehat{k}_p}) and Cowan ({\widehat{k}_c}) estimates. The Cowan measure yields an invariance of capacity with set size; the Pashler measure yields a dependenceCC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 The dependence of informed guessing, g, on set size, capacity, and uninformed guessing base rate (u) in the whole-display paradigm
Fig. 3 The dependence of informed guessing, g, on set size, capacity, and uninformed guessing base rate (u) in the whole-display paradigmCC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 336

Related

Metadata

Authors
Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Morey, C. C., & Cowan, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri System (US)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Rouder, Jeffrey N.
ORCID
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-02-19
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
324-330
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/s13423-011-0055-3
PMC
PMC3070885
OpenAlex
W1993017443
Cited by
334
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 20
FWCI
24.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD-21338, R01HD021338)
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 › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
working memory capacity, change detection, capacity measurement, modal model, visual working memory
MeSH terms
Aptitude, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Psychological, Psychological Tests, Signal Detection, Psychological

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