On perfect working-memory performance with large numbers of items
Abstract
Many popular models conceptualize working memory as consisting of three or four discrete slots or bins. This conceptualization, however, has been seemingly refuted by Bays and Husain (2009), who reported perfect performance on a working memory task with a large number of very simple items. We show, however, that this perfect-performance result likely reflects a design flaw rather than mnemonic structure. The flaw is that the test array itself in Bays and Husain's study provides information about the correct answer without recourse to working memory. We show perfect performance on eight items for 18 participants when this information is present. We show that performance is poorer, however, when this information is removed. Hence, the Bays and Husain result does not threaten models that stipulate that working memory is composed of limited slots.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
VoxLens' command recognition effectiveness was verified through manual testing using prior work's data set on natural language utterances for visualizations.
“Additionally, we verifed VoxLens' command recognition efectiveness through manual testing, using prior work's [73] data set on natural language utterances for visualizations.”
From VoxLens: Making Online Data Visualizations Accessible with an Interactive JavaScript Plug-In (2022) · cites this paper as [73]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
VoxLens: Making Online Data Visualizations Accessible with an Interactive JavaScript Plug-In
Sharif, A., Wang, O. H., Muongchan, A. T., Reinecke, K., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517431 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
“Additionally, they have to remember and process more information mentally than is often humanly feasible [74], such as when seeking the maximum or minimum value in a chart.”
BackgroundUnderstanding Screen-Reader Users’ Experiences with Online Data Visualizations
Sharif, A., Chintalapati, S. S., Wobbrock, J. O., & Reinecke, K. (2021) · Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3441852.3471202 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
- Authors
- Thiele, J. E., Pratte, M. S., & Rouder, J. N.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri (US)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rouder, Jeffrey N.
- Venue
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
- Published
- 2011-06-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 958-963
- ISSN
- 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5320
- OpenAlex
- W1991196560
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 4.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- working memory, working memory models
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Psychological, Task Performance and Analysis
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