Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The validity of “conceptual span” as a measure of working memory capacity

  • Published:
Memory & Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Three experiments tested whether a modified version of the Clustered Conceptual Span task (H. J. Haarmann, E. J. Davelaar, & M. Usher, 2003), which ostensibly requires active maintenance of semantic representations, predicted individual differences in higher-order cognitive abilities better than short-term memory (STM) span tasks or nonsemantic versions of the“Conceptual” task did. Nonsemantic Conceptual tasks presented short word lists clustered by color, first letter, or initial vowel sound, and cued subjects to recall only 1 of 3 clusters from each list; the Semantic task clustered words by taxonomic category. The Semantic Conceptual task generally failed to predict incremental variance in either verbal abilities or general fluid intelligence beyond the other Conceptual tasks or STM span tasks. Although the Semantic task showed a stronger relation to working memory span tasks than did the nonsemantic tasks (Experiment 3), that stronger relation did not translate into strong prediction of cognitive individual differences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S., &Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device.Psychological Review,105, 158–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D., Lewis, V. J., &Vallar, G. (1984). Exploring the articulatory loop.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36, 233–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrouillet, P., Bernadin, S., &Camos, V. (2004). Time constraints and resource sharing in adults’ working memory spans.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133, 83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battig, W. F., &Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology,80, 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, F. R., Gupta, W. B., Berger, R. M., &Skinner, J. (1990).Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) form P: Test manual (AFHRLTR-89-56). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Manpower and Personnel Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bousfield, A. K., &Bousfield, W. A. (1966). Measurement of clustering and of sequential constancies in repeated free recall.Psychological Reports,19, 935–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunting, M. F. (2006). Proactive interference and item similarity in working memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,32, 183–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, N., &Hitch, G. J. (1999). Memory for serial order: A network model of the phonological loop and its timing.Psychological Review,106, 551–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantor, J., Engle, R. W., &Hamilton, G. (1991). Short-term memory, working memory, and verbal abilities: How do they relate?Intelligence,15, 229–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. L., &Sandberg, T. (1977). Relation between intelligence and short-term memory.Cognitive Psychology,9, 534–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. L., &Sandberg, T. (1980). Intelligence and short-term memory: A clandestine relationship.Intelligence,4, 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltheart, M. (1981).Unpublished MRC database user manual: Version 1.

  • Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F., Therriault, D., &Minkoff, S. (2002). A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence.Intelligence,30, 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., &Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 769–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, N. (2005).Working memory capacity. New York: Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crosson, B., Rao, S. M., Woodley, S. J., Rosen, A. C., Bobholz, J. A., Mayer, A., et al. (1999). Mapping of semantic, phonological, and orthographic verbal working memory in normal adults with functional magnetic resonance imaging.Neuropsychology,13, 171–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., &Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 422–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, F. N. (1981). Memory span: Sources of individual and developmental differences.Psychological Bulletin,89, 63–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, M. H., &Dermen, D. (1976).Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. W., &Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In B. H. Ross (Ed.)The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 44, pp. 145–199). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. W., Nations, J. K., &Cantor, J. (1990). Is “working memory capacity” just another name for word knowledge?Journal of Educational Psychology,82, 799–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., &Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,128, 309–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, S., &Lewandowsky, S. (2002). An endogenous distributed model of ordering in serial recall.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 59–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haarmann, H. J., Ashling, G. E., Davelaar, E. J., &Usher, M. (2005). Age-related declines in context maintenance and semantic short-term memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,58A, 34–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haarmann, H. J., Davelaar, E. J., &Usher, M. (2003). Individual differences in semantic short-term memory capacity and reading comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,48, 320–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haarmann, H. J., &Usher, M. (2001). Maintenance of semantic information in capacity-limited item short-term memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 568–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., &Rogers, J. H. (1991).Fundamentals of item response theory. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanten, G., &Martin, R. C. (2000). Contributions of phonological and semantic short-term memory to sentence processing: Evidence from two cases of closed-head injury in children.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 355–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henson, R. N. A. (1998). Short-term memory for serial order: The start-end model.Cognitive Psychology,36, 73–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. L., Donaldson, G., &Engstrom, R. (1981). Apprehension, memory, and fluid intelligence decline in adulthood.Research on Aging,3, 33–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. (1887). Experiments on “prehension.”Mind,12, 75–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., &Conway, A. R. A. (2005). Working memory capacity and fluid intelligence are strongly related constructs: Comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2005).Psychological Bulletin,131, 66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., &Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133, 189–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, C. E., &Morton, N. W. (1999).Revised Beta Examination— Third edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2004).Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Pointe, L. B., &Engle, R. W. (1990). Simple and complex word spans as measures of working memory capacity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 1118–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lustig, C., May, C. P., &Hasher, L. (2001). Working memory span and the role of proactive interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, G. (1968). Organized recall: Individual functions.Psychonomic Science,13, 230–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. C., &Freedman, M. (2001). Verbal working memory: The ins and outs of phonological and lexical-semantic retention. In H. L. Roediger III, J. S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. M. Surprenant (Eds.),The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 331–349). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. C., &Romani, C. (1994). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension: A multiple-components view.Neuropsychology,9, 506–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neath, I., &Nairne, J. S. (1995). Word-length effects in immediate memory: Overwriting trace decay theory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 429–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberauer, K. (2005). The measurement of working memory capacity. In O. Wilhelm & R. W. Engle (Eds.),Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 393–407). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oberauer, K., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., &Süss, H.-M. (2005). Working memory and intelligence—their correlation and their relation: Comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2005).Psychological Bulletin,131, 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, M. P. A., &Norris, D. (1998). The primacy model: A new model of immediate serial recall.Psychological Review,105, 761–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Psychological Corporation (1999).Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven, J. C., Raven, J. E., &Court, J. H. (1998).Progressive matrices. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito, S. (2006, July).Forgetting and interference in working memory span tests. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Memory, Sydney, Australia.

  • Swanson, H. L. (1992). Generality and modifiability of working memory among skilled and less skilled readers.Journal of Educational Psychology,84, 473–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tehan, G., &Lalor, D. M. (2000). Individual differences in memory span: The contribution of rehearsal, access to lexical memory, and output speed.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,53A, 1012–1038.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M. L., &Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent?Journal of Memory & Language,28, 127–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina, P.O. Box 26170, 27402-6170, Greensboro, NC

    Michael J. Kane & Tina M. Miyake

Authors
  1. Michael J. Kane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tina M. Miyake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Kane.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kane, M.J., Miyake, T.M. The validity of “conceptual span” as a measure of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition 35, 1136–1150 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193484

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193484

Keywords

Search

Navigation