Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Menu
Find a journal Publish with us Track your research
Search
Cart
  1. Home
  2. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
  3. Article

Individual differences in working memory capacity and divided attention in dichotic listening

  • Brief Reports
  • Published: August 2007
  • Volume 14, pages 699–703, (2007)
  • Cite this article
Download PDF
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript
Individual differences in working memory capacity and divided attention in dichotic listening
Download PDF
  • Gregory J. H. Colflesh1 &
  • Andrew R. A. Conway2 
  • 5836 Accesses

  • 103 Citations

  • 1 Altmetric

  • Explore all metrics

Abstract

The controlled attention theory of working memory suggests that individuals with greater working memory capacity (WMC) are better able to control or focus their attention than individuals with lesser WMC. This relationship has been observed in a number of selective attention paradigms including a dichotic listening task (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001) in which participants were required to shadow words presented to one ear and ignore words presented to the other ear. Conway et al. found that when the participant’s name was presented to the ignored ear, 65% of participants with low WMC reported hearing their name, compared to only 20% of participants with high WMC, suggesting greater selective attention on the part of high WMC participants. In the present study, individual differences in divided attention were examined in a dichotic listening task, in which participants shadowed one message and listened for their own name in the other message. Here we find that 66.7% of high WMC and 34.5% of low WMC participants detected their name. These results suggest that as WMC capacity increases, so does the ability to control the focus of attention, with high WMC participants being able to flexibly “zoom in” or “zoom out” depending on task demands.

Article PDF

Download to read the full article text

Use our pre-submission checklist

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

References

  • Baddeley, A., &Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–90). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleckley, M. K., Durso, F. T., Crutchfield, J. M., Engle, R. W., &Khanna, M. M. (2003). Individual differences in working memory capacity predict visual attention allocation.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 884–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., &Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 331–335.

    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). Understanding intelligence: A summary and an adjustable-attention hypothesis. In O. Wilhelm & R. W. Engle (Eds.),Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 469–488). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., &Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working memory capacity: Individual differences in memory span and the control of visual orienting.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 169–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. J., &Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual differences perspective.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 637–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. J., &Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,132, 47–70.

    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 

  • Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,11, 56–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, N., Schrock, J. C., &Engle, R. W. (2004). Working memory capacity and the antisaccade task: Individual differences in voluntary saccade control.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 1302–1321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, N., &Cowan, N. (1995). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: How frequent are attention shifts to one’s name in an irrelevant auditory channel?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 255–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology (M/C 285), University of Illinois, 1007 West Harrison Street, 60607, Chicago, IL

    Gregory J. H. Colflesh

  2. Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

    Andrew R. A. Conway

Authors
  1. Gregory J. H. Colflesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew R. A. Conway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory J. H. Colflesh.

Additional information

This research was submitted to the University of Illinois at Chicago in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree by G.J.H.C.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Colflesh, G.J.H., Conway, A.R.A. Individual differences in working memory capacity and divided attention in dichotic listening. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 699–703 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196824

Download citation

  • Received: 27 April 2006

  • Accepted: 07 November 2006

  • Issue Date: August 2007

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196824

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Work Memory Capacity
  • Dichotic Listening
  • Antisaccade Task
  • Divided Attention Task
  • High Work Memory Capacity
Use our pre-submission checklist

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Advertisement

search

Navigation

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Books A-Z

Publish with us

  • Publish your research
  • Open access publishing

Products and services

  • Our products
  • Librarians
  • Societies
  • Partners and advertisers

Our imprints

  • Springer
  • Nature Portfolio
  • BMC
  • Palgrave Macmillan
  • Apress
  • Your US state privacy rights
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Help and support

5.135.140.155

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2024 Springer Nature