Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

What Limits Working Memory Capacity?


Oberauer, Klaus; Farrell, Simon; Jarrold, Christopher; Lewandowsky, Stephan (2016). What Limits Working Memory Capacity? Psychological Bulletin, 142(7):758-799.

Abstract

We review the evidence for the 3 principal theoretical contenders that vie to explain why and how working memory (WM) capacity is limited. We examine the possibility that capacity limitations arise from temporal decay; we examine whether they might reflect a limitation in cognitive resources; and we ask whether capacity might be limited because of mutual interference of representations in WM. We evaluate each hypothesis against a common set of findings reflecting the capacity limit: The set-size effect and its modulation by domain-specificity and heterogeneity of the memory set; the effects of unfilled retention intervals and of distractor processing in the retention interval; and the pattern of correlates of WM tests. We conclude that-at least for verbal memoranda-a decay explanation is untenable. A resource-based view remains tenable but has difficulty accommodating several findings. The interference approach has its own set of difficulties but accounts best for the set of findings, and therefore, appears to present the most promising approach for future development. (PsycINFO Database Record

Abstract

We review the evidence for the 3 principal theoretical contenders that vie to explain why and how working memory (WM) capacity is limited. We examine the possibility that capacity limitations arise from temporal decay; we examine whether they might reflect a limitation in cognitive resources; and we ask whether capacity might be limited because of mutual interference of representations in WM. We evaluate each hypothesis against a common set of findings reflecting the capacity limit: The set-size effect and its modulation by domain-specificity and heterogeneity of the memory set; the effects of unfilled retention intervals and of distractor processing in the retention interval; and the pattern of correlates of WM tests. We conclude that-at least for verbal memoranda-a decay explanation is untenable. A resource-based view remains tenable but has difficulty accommodating several findings. The interference approach has its own set of difficulties but accounts best for the set of findings, and therefore, appears to present the most promising approach for future development. (PsycINFO Database Record

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
27 citations in Web of Science®
24 citations in Scopus®
23 citations in Microsoft Academic
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Psychology
Dewey Decimal Classification:150 Psychology
Language:English
Date:7 March 2016
Deposited On:29 Mar 2016 12:34
Last Modified:19 Aug 2018 03:01
Publisher:American Psychological Association
ISSN:0033-2909
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000046
PubMed ID:26950009
Project Information:
  • : FunderSNSF
  • : Grant ID100014_135002
  • : Project TitleThe Capacity Limit of Working Memory: Continuous or Discrete?

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

Get full-text in a library