Showing posts with label cognitive load. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cognitive load. Show all posts

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Research Byte: A closer look at who "chokes under pressure" - importance of attentional control (AC)

Volume 5, Issue 4, December 2016, Pages 470–477
Working Memory in the Wild: Applied Research in Working Memory

A Closer Look at Who “Chokes Under Pressure”



Highlights

High pressure settings compromise working memory and decrease cognitive performance.
Those with higher working memory show greatest pressure-induced cognitive deficits.
Attentional control alters relation of working memory to performance under pressure.

Previous research has shown that the higher one's working memory capacity, the more likely his/her performance is to be negatively impacted by performance pressure. In the current research we examined potential explanations for this finding by assessing the relation between pressure-induced performance deficits (i.e. “choking under pressure”) in math-based problem solving and individual differences in both working memory (as assessed via complex span tasks) and attentional control (as assessed via two measures from an Eriksen Flanker task). We find higher working memory only relates to “choking under pressure” when individuals were low in attentional control. These results further elucidate the mechanism by which high-pressure scenarios can lead to errors in performance and carry implications for developing effective intervention strategies to prevent poor performance in high-stakes situations.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Research bytes: Cognitive load theory--recent research updates

Educational Psychology Review appears to be a hot bed for publications regarding cognitive load theory. Below are abstracts (double click to enlarge) of three articles I downloaded today at Springerlink.com. They are all open access articles. So, if you want to download and read go to their web page. You will need to set up an account first..then you can have access to a number of open access articles from a variety of journals.











- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Monday, July 26, 2010

Research bytes 7-26-1-: Lots of good intelligence, cognitive, neuro, Big 5, genetic, working memory research stuff

Usual offer -- would you like to read the actual article...in exchange for a brief guest blog post at IQ's Corner?  Contact blogmaster (iap@earthlink.net) if interested.

Ferrer, E., &  McArdle, J. J. (2010). Longitudinal Modeling of Developmental Changes in Psychological Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 149-154.
In this article we provide a review of recent advances in longitudinal models for multivariate change. We first claim the need for dynamic modeling approaches as a way to evaluate psychological theories. We then describe one such approach, latent change score (LCS) models, and illustrate their utility with a summary of research findings in various areas of psychological science. We then highlight the most prominent features of LCS models. We conclude the article with suggestions for future research on multivariate models of change that can enhance our understanding of psychological science.

Johnson, W. (2010). Understanding the Genetics of Intelligence: Can Height Help? Can Corn Oil? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 177-182.
Although the subject is controversial, identifying the specific genes that contribute to general cognitive ability (GCA) has seemed to have good prospects, at least among psychological traits. GCA is reliably and validly measured and strongly heritable, and it shows genetically mediated physiological associations and developmental stability. To date, however, results have been disappointing. Human height shows these measurement characteristics even more strongly than GCA, yet data have indicated that no individual gene has more than trivial effects and this is also true for corn oil. The potential for environmental trigger of genetic expression, long recognized in evolutionary and developmental genetics, as applied to these seemingly disparate traits, can help us to understand the apparent contradiction between the heritability of intelligence and other psychological traits and the difficulty of identifying specific genetic effects.

Lavie, N. (2010). Attention, Distraction, and Cognitive Control Under Load. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 143-148.
The extent to which people can focus attention in the face of irrelevant distractions has been shown to critically depend on the level and type of information load involved in their current task. The ability to focus attention improves under task conditions of high perceptual load but deteriorates under conditions of high load on cognitive control processes such as working memory. I review recent research on the effects of load on visual awareness and brain activity, including changing effects over the life span, and I outline the consequences for distraction and inattention in daily life and in clinical populations.

DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R. (2010). Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five. Psychological Science, 21(6), 820-828.

We used a new theory of the biological basis of the Big Five personality traits to generate hypotheses about the association of each trait with the volume of different brain regions. Controlling for age, sex, and whole-brain volume, results from structural magnetic resonance imaging of 116 healthy adults supported our hypotheses for four of the five traits: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Extraversion covaried with volume of medial orbitofrontal cortex, a brain region involved in processing reward information. Neuroticism covaried with volume of brain regions associated with threat, punishment, and negative affect. Agreeableness covaried with volume in regions that process information about the intentions and mental states of other individuals. Conscientiousness covaried with volume in lateral prefrontal cortex, a region involved in planning and the voluntary control of behavior. These findings support our biologically based, explanatory model of the Big Five and demonstrate the potential of personality neuroscience (i.e., the systematic study of individual differences in personality using neuroscience methods) as a discipline


Goldstein, M. H., Waterfall, H. R., Lotem, A., Halpern, J. Y., Schwade, J. A., Onnis, L., & Edelman, S. (2010). General cognitive principles for learning structure in time and space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), 249-258.
An understanding of how the human brain produces cognition ultimately depends on knowledge of large-scale brain organization. Although it has long been assumed that cognitive functions are attributable to the isolated operations of single brain areas, we demonstrate that the weight of evidence has now shifted in support of the view that cognition results from the dynamic interactions of distributed brain areas operating in large-scale networks. We review current research on structural and functional brain organization, and argue that the emerging science of large-scale brain networks provides a coherent framework for understanding of cognition. Critically, this framework allows a principled exploration of how cognitive functions emerge from, and are constrained by, core structural and functional networks of the brain.

Klingberg, T. (2010).  Trainin and plasticity of working memory.  Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 (7), 317-324
Working memory (WM) capacity predicts performance in a wide range of cognitive tasks. Although WM capacity has been viewed as a constant trait, recent studies suggest that it can be improved by adaptive and extended training. This training is associated with changes in brain activity in frontal and parietal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as changes in dopamine receptor density. Transfer of the training effects to non-trained WM tasks is consistent with the notion of training-induced plasticity in a common neural network for WM. The observed training effects suggest that WM training could be used as a remediating intervention for individuals for whom low WM capacity is a limiting factor for academic performance or in everyday life.


Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Cognitive load instructional theory and working memory


[double click on image to enlarge]

Yesterday I made a post to the NASP listserv, with a redirect to a post at this blog, regarding the importance of working memory to cognitive functioning and school learning. Wally Howe, president of Psychological Assessments Australia, made a wonderful follow-up post regarding the relevance of cognitive load theory to instruction-- a theory grounded heavily in the notion of designing instruction around the constraints of working memory.

Wally's responses to my NASP post (and redirect to detailed blog post) follow below. Following Wally's comments are references I found in my IAP Reference Database. For those references where I had previously harvested copies of the article (n=8) there are "click here" links to the articles.

I have always intended to review and summarize this literature (see 4 prior posts on cognitive load theory)...but alas.....I've never found the time. Maybe some reader will be interested in reading the articles (via the links below) and will be willing to write a guest blog post. If anyone is interested in drafting such a guest post, please contact me at iap@earthlink.net.

Wally Howe comments: Just a comment on this thread. I am not entirely up to date on all the literature, but thought I might put in my two cents worth for comment. I have studied under John Sweller at the University of NSW. Kevin, you have mentioned his work previously as being of interest and although he doesn't work in individual differences, his work appears to overlap with this discussion of MW. Sweller has researched Cognitive Load Theory. This research, mainly using adolescents working High School math problems, has looked at how different ways of formatting materials effects learning. He argues that the main factor in learning complex material is working memory - it has huge limitations, so to learn, humans have to work within these limitations (and even find ways around these limitations). Thus any method that reduces the cognitive load on working memory is useful (eg worked examples, using both visual and auditory working memory together etc). He has an evolutionary explanation for this, too, as it is somewhat unusual that a limitation like this has survived for so long if one believes in natural selection.

John hasn't researched how individual differences in working memory (or different aspects of it) effect learning, which is more yours and my interest, Kevin, but his model of human learning puts MW firmly at the centre, as does the research you have just outlined.

At NASP recently, one presenter suggested that "Intelligence is what allows students to learn in spite of their teachers" - a somewhat cynical view, you may think, but a comment worthy of further thought. If MW is central to learning, those with high capabilities in this area will not be as effected by cognitive load as those not so lucky - the formatting of learning materials for example, won't be as critical for them. The knowledge of how cognitive load effects learning isn't widely appreciated (or even researched in detail), so it's no surprise that teachers do not consciously or systematically design lessons to reduce it (so don't deserve blame - ignorance is a defence in my opinion). Thus these lucky students build procedural knowledge more quickly and so are advantaged increasingly as they learn more and come to be be seen as "highly intelligent". I conceptualise Gs, or fluency in some contexts, as the speed with which information can move between long term memory (knowledge store) and working memory and the presenting problem. Given that working memory decays very quickly, the speed with which an individual can move information back and forth helps immensely, both in accessing data and refreshing data.

I also agree with your premise that there are different factors underpinning the construct of MW that come in to play with different people - speed, size of store, speed of decay etc, but we don't seem to measure too many of these at the moment. There must also be interact ional effects too, just to make the picture even more complex. MW may well be too global a construct to fully explain a wide range of individual differences.

Sweller's research is very practical. Even if we can tease out all the factors underpinning MW, we still have to design teaching materials and programs that make learning more efficient or in some cases, possible, in spite of problems in these complex cognitive processes.

Wally Howe.


1. Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). Can the cognitive load approach make instructional animations more effective? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 811-820.

2. Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). Making instructional animations more effective: A cognitive load approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 695-700.

3. Barrouillet, P., Bemardin, S., Portrat, S., Vergauwe, E., & Camos, V. (2007). Time and cognitive load in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 33(3), 570-585. (click here)

4. Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53-61.

5. DeNeys, W., & Schaeken, W. (2007). When people are more logical under cognitive load - Dual task impact on scalar implicature. Experimental Psychology, 54(2), 128-133.

6. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616-1641.

7. Fink, A., & Neubauer, A. C. (2001). Speed of information processing, psychometric intelligence: and time estimation as an index of cognitive load. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(6), 1009-1021. (click here)

8. Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 33-41.

9. Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 713-729.

10. Igo, L. B., Kiewra, K. A., Zumbrunn, S. K., & Kirschbaum, A. L. (2007). How best to remove the snare from the pair: Construction and cognitive load hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Education, 75(2), 130-144.

11. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 558-568. (click here)

12. Lee, H., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 902-913.

13. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

14. Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing Constructivist Learning From Multimedia Communications by Minimizing Cognitive Load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 638-643.

15. Moreno, R. (2007). Optimising learning from animations by minimising cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signalling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 765-781.

16. Moreno, R. (2006). When worked examples don't work: Is cognitive load theory at an Impasse? Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 170-181. (click here)

17. Owens, P., & Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and music instruction. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 29-45.

18. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4. (click here)

19. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & VanGerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71. (click here)

20. Paas, F., & vanGog, T. (2006). Optimising worked example instruction: Different ways to increase germane cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 87-91.

21. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15-22.

22. Schnotz, W., & Kurschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469-508. (click here)

23. Sirois, S., & Shultz, T. R. (2006). Preschoolers out of adults: Discriminative learning with a cognitive load. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(8), 1357-1377.

24. Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A Comparison of Cognitive Load Associated With Discovery Learning and Worked Examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 334-341.

25. vanMerrienboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177. (click here)

26. Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2006). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 141-142.


Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, June 24, 2007

IQ Research bytes #1--recent working memory research

Without at doubt, the construct of working memory (Gsm-MW) has been the focus of considerable research and theory the past decade. I, the IQ's Corner blogmaster, can't seem to not download, skim and save articles that have the phrase "working memory" in the journal title (click here for all IQ's Corner posts that have "working memory" tagged; n >40).

Some recent empirical "bytes" include:
  • Point and counterpoint re: the validity of the phonological loop/store as per the most prominent working memory model articled by Baddeley et. al. See defense of the Baddeley model by Baddeley et al. (2007), a criticism by Jones et al. (2007), and a rejoinder by Baddeley et al in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
  • An excellent overview article on "what we know and don't know" about the relationship between working memory and reading Savage et al. (2007) in the Educational Psychology Review. If for no other reason, check out Figure 3 and the related text. I love the visual schematic of working and short-term memory measures used in development research to date.
  • Check out Imbo et al. (2007), also in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, if you are looking for evidence for the role of components of working memory (phonological loop; executive functions) in mathematics ("carrying" in mental arithmetic, to be specific) .
  • Finally, I've been following the "cognitive load" related working memory literature as I believe it is research that has the potential to facilitate a bridge between theoretical/empirical working memory research and academic interventions. The latest from the "cognitive load" research can be found in Barrouillet et al'.s (2007) article "Time and cognitive load in working memory"

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Cognitive load, working memory and instruction


[double click on image to enlarge]

Yesterday the Eide Neurolearning blog had a nice post on "cognitive load" with many links to a news article, a PPT file, etc. I've been very intrigued with cognitive load theory (viz., "optimum learning occurs in humans when the load on working
memory is kept to a minimum to best facilitate the changes in long term
memory") for years, primarily because it appears to be a potential link from research on cognitive psychology (information processing theory) to instructional practices. More than once I've started blog posts....only to recognize that I needed to read the material deeper.

The ENL post has given me the idea that I should simply post the articles I've accumulated in hopes that readers can read and extract the information they need. Maybe someone will post some nice comments after reading these articles. Or...if someone wants to read them and do a guest blog post, contact me re: this possibility (iap@earthlink.net).

Paas, F., Renkl, A., Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1, 1-4. (click here to view)

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H., Van Gerven, P.W.M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1, 63-71. (click here to view)
  • Abstract
  • In this article, we discuss cognitive load measurement techniques with regard to their contribution to cognitive load theory (CLT). CLT is concerned with the design of instructional methods that efficiently use people's limited cognitive processing capacity to apply acquired knowledge and skills to new situations (i.e., transfer). CLT is based on a cognitive architecture that consists of a limited working memory with partly independent processing units for visual and auditory information, which interacts with an unlimited long-term memory. These structures and functions of human cognitive architecture have been used to design a variety of novel efficient instructional methods. The associated research has shown that measures of cognitive load can reveal important information for CLT that is not necessarily reflected by traditional performance-based measures. Particularly, the combination of performance and cognitive load measures has been identified to constitute a reliable estimate of the mental efficiency of instructional methods. The discussion of previously used cognitive load measurement techniques and their role in the advancement of CLT is followed by a discussion of aspects of CLT that may benefit by measurement of cognitive load. Within the cognitive load framework, we also discuss some promising new techniques.
Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Expertise, ACT-R, CLT (cognitive load theory): Instructional design

In my readings I frequently run across references to Anderson's ACT-R framework for describing the acquisition of expertise. If pushed hard, I would be hard to provide a concise explanation/description of this model. Thus, I found a quick skim of a recent article dealing with CLT (cognitive load theory) a pleasant surprise. The following concise summary (italics added by blogmaster) of the ACT-R framework was provided.

  • "Using worked examples in problem-solving instruction is consistent with a four-stage model of expertise that is based on the well-known ACT-R framework (Anderson, Fincham,& Douglass, 1997). In this model, learners who are in the first stage of skill acquisition solve problems by analogy; they use known examples of problems, and try to relate those problems to the new problem to be solved. At the second stage, learners have developed abstract declarative rules or schemas, which guide them in future problem solving. At the third stage, with sufficient practice, the schemas become proceduralised, leading to the fourth stage of expertise where automatic schemas and analogical reasoning on a large pool of examples are combined to successfully solve a variety of problem types. Empirical evidence has shown that learning with worked examples is most important during initial skill acquisition stages for well-structured domains such as physics, programming, and mathematics (Van-Lehn, 1996)."
Although not the primary purpose of this post, readers may find the complete article, which deals with CLT, of interest. I've been collecting articles on CLT but have yet to devote sufficient time to understanding the implications of CLT (which would allow me to do some intelligent posting). All I can say is that I think CLT appears to have significant implications for instructional interventions when framed within a cognitive information processing framework.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox