Research Byte: Individual differences in #workingmemory (Gwm) and #attentionalcontrol (#AC) continue to predict memory #Gl) performance despite extensive learning—#CHC #schoolpsychology

Individual differences in working memory and attentional control continue to predict memory performance despite extensive learning.

Zhao, C., & Vogel, E. K. (2025). Individual differences in working memory and attentional control continue to predict memory performance despite extensive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001728

---

Abstract

Individual differences in working memory predict a wide range of cognitive abilities. However, little research has been done on whether working memory continues to predict task performance after repetitive learning. Here, we tested whether working memory ability continued to predict long-term memory (LTM) performance for picture sequences even after participants showed massive learning. In Experiments 1–3, subjects performed a source memory task in which they were presented a sequence of 30 objects shown in one of four quadrants and then were tested on each item’s position. We repeated this procedure for five times in Experiment 1 and 12 times in Experiments 2 and 3. Interestingly, we discovered that individual differences in working memory continually predicted LTM accuracy across all repetitions. In Experiment 4, we replicated the stable working memory demands with word pairs. In Experiment 5, we generalized the stable working memory demands model to attentional control abilities. Together, these results suggest that people, instead of relying less on working memory, optimized their working memory and attentional control throughout learning. 

---

Impact Statement

Working memory ability predicts various cognitive abilities. However, whether its predictive power remains after participants repetitively study the test materials remains unknown. Here, in five experiments with visual and verbal materials, we found that individual differences in working memory and attentional control (WMAC) constantly predicted people’s memory performance even after extensive training of the same materials. Our results provided a new understanding of WMAC, in that learning may better tune participants’ attention and working memory toward task demands, instead of eliminating the reliance on attentional control in performing tasks.

CHC cognitive theory update: Glr is now separate Gl and Gr broad abilities & upcoming change in WJ V Tests of Cognitive Ability—minimizing the jingle-jangle fallacy.

In the latest “unofficial” CHC theory of intellectual abilities description and definition of broad and narrow CHC abilities, Schneider and McGrew [me] (2018), declared the broad Glr ability divorce (which had a trial separation in our prior 2012 CHC chapter) official with the cleaving of Glr into the separate broad abilities of learning efficiency (Gl) and retrieval fluency (Gr). Gl is now “the ability to learn, store, and consolidate new information over periods of time measured in minutes, hours, days, and years” (Schneider & McGrew, 2018, p. 100).  Gr is “the rate and fluency at which individuals can access information (Schneider & McGrew, 2018, p. 102).

Schneider and McGrew (2018) recognized the risk involved in using the term learning efficiency for Gl.  They stated we:

               recognize the risk in using the word efficiency, given the conceptual confusion surrounding the term—stemming from its use in a variety of disciplines and even its multiple meanings within educational psychology (Hoffman, 2012; Hoffman & Schraw, 2009, 2010). We do not mean efficiency as conveyed by the Gs + Gwm mental efficiency notion present in certain intelligence composite scores (the WJ III/WJ IV Cognitive Efficiency cluster; the Wechsler batteries' Cognitive Proficiency Index). Our definition is consistent with Hoffman's (2012) conception as related to the efficiency of learning and storing new information: ‘Learning efficiency is primarily based upon individual performance during learning when accounting for the incremental costs associated with the learning process. Individual performance means measurable changes in the amount, rate, frequency, or qualitative complexity of knowledge structures. Incremental costs mean factors such as time taken, effort invested, or error rates incurred’ (p.  134; original emphasis). For example, to learn and retain a certain amount of information (e.g., a 16-word list), some individuals need to exert more effort than others. To achieve the same outcome, they need more learning inputs (e.g., more learning trials or more time to study) (p. 100).

Although Schneider and McGrew (2018) recommended calling the new CHC Gl domain learning efficiency, they noted that the term learning efficiency has multiple meanings and can suffer from the jingle-jangle fallacy (Kelly, 1927)— “when erroneous assumptions are made that two different things are the same because the same name (the jingle fallacy), or that identical to almost identical things are different because they are labeled differently (the jangle fallacy) (p. 143). As a result, I (Kevin McGrew) have recommended that in the forthcoming WJ V, Gl be called long-term storage instead of learning efficiency. The prior WJ IV had the previous Glr ability domain cluster.

Joel Schneider and I, at some future point, will revisit our official CHC Gl term and definition in future publications.

Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2018). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & Erin M. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (4th ed., pp. 73-163).  New York: Guilford Press.

 

How to keep your memory as you age: Annual Review of Psychology

Annual Review of Psychology: Successful Memory Aging. Article link.

Lars Nyberg and Sara Pudas

Abstract

For more than 50 years, psychologists, gerontologists, and, more recently, neuroscientists have considered the possibility of successful aging. How to define successful aging remains debated, but well-preserved age-sensitive cognitive functions, like episodic memory, is an often-suggested criterion. Evidence for successful memory aging comes from cross-sectional and lon-gitudinal studies showing that some older individuals display high and sta-ble levels of performance. Successful memory aging may be accomplished via multiple paths. One path is through brain maintenance, or relative lack of age-related brain pathology. Through another path, successful memory aging can be accomplished despite brain pathology by means of efficient compensatory and strategic processes. Genetic, epigenetic, and lifestyle fac-tors influence memory aging via both paths. Some of these factors can be promoted throughout the life course, which, at the individual as well as the societal level, can positively impact successful memory aging.

Click on image to enlarge.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Musicians have better memory than nonmusicians: A meta-analysis

More research, this time a meta-analysis, documenting the cognitive benefits of musical training. I better not show this to my mother who never liked the fact that I only took one year of piano:)

Musicians have better memory than nonmusicians: A meta-analysis

Francesca Talamini, Gianmarco Altoè, Barbara Carretti, Massimo Grassi

Abstract

The three meta-analyses revealed a small effect size for long-term memory, and a medium effect size for short-term and working memory, suggesting that musicians perform better than nonmusicians in memory tasks. Moreover, the effect of the moderator suggested that, the type of stimuli influences this advantage.

Click on image to enlarge. Article link.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The CHC model of human cognitive abilities--a proposed revision (v2.3): Has Glr been incorrectly conceptualized since 1997?

This presentation contains a historical overview of the derivation of the Glr ability domain in contemporary CHC theory. It then presents new data, as well as historical conclusions of the CHC masters, that makes a strong case for replacing the stratum II broad ability domain of Glr with two separate broad ability domains of Gl (learning efficiency) and Gr (retrieval fluency). How to obtain WJ IV scores for these two broad abilities is presented, as well as other possible Gl and Gr tests indicators from the CHC cross-battery literature.

A pdf copy of this set of slides, one per page, can be downloaded here.

CHC model of inteligence revised (v2.4). Has Glr been incorrectly conceptualized since 1997? from Kevin McGrew

Creativity and IQ tests: Review and thoughts of James Kaufman

 

Click on image to enlarge for reading