Elizabeth M Byrne, Rebecca A Gilbert, Rogier A Kievit, Joni Holmes
{"title":"Evidence for separate backward recall and <i>n</i>-back working memory factors: a large-scale latent variable analysis.","authors":"Elizabeth M Byrne, Rebecca A Gilbert, Rogier A Kievit, Joni Holmes","doi":"10.1080/09658211.2024.2393388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Multiple studies have explored the factor structure of working memory (WM) tasks, yet few have done so controlling for both the domain and category of the memory items in a single study. In the current pre-registered study, we conducted a large-scale latent variable analysis using variant forms of n-back and backward recall tasks to test whether they measured a single underlying construct, or were distinguished by stimuli-, domain-, or paradigm-specific factors. Exploratory analyses investigated how the resulting WM factor(s) were linked to fluid intelligence. Participants (<i>N</i> = 703) completed a fluid reasoning test and multiple n-back and backward recall tasks containing memoranda that varied across (spatial or verbal material) and within (verbal digits or letters) domain, allowing the variance specific to task content and paradigm to be assessed. Two distinct but related backward recall and n-back constructs best captured the data, in comparison to other plausible model constructions (single WM factor, two-factor domain, and three-factor materials models). Common variance associated with WM was a stronger predictor of fluid reasoning than a residual n-back factor, but the backward recall factor predicted fluid reasoning as strongly as the common WM factor. These data emphasise the distinctiveness between backward recall and n-back tasks.</p>","PeriodicalId":18569,"journal":{"name":"Memory","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11441403/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2393388","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Multiple studies have explored the factor structure of working memory (WM) tasks, yet few have done so controlling for both the domain and category of the memory items in a single study. In the current pre-registered study, we conducted a large-scale latent variable analysis using variant forms of n-back and backward recall tasks to test whether they measured a single underlying construct, or were distinguished by stimuli-, domain-, or paradigm-specific factors. Exploratory analyses investigated how the resulting WM factor(s) were linked to fluid intelligence. Participants (N = 703) completed a fluid reasoning test and multiple n-back and backward recall tasks containing memoranda that varied across (spatial or verbal material) and within (verbal digits or letters) domain, allowing the variance specific to task content and paradigm to be assessed. Two distinct but related backward recall and n-back constructs best captured the data, in comparison to other plausible model constructions (single WM factor, two-factor domain, and three-factor materials models). Common variance associated with WM was a stronger predictor of fluid reasoning than a residual n-back factor, but the backward recall factor predicted fluid reasoning as strongly as the common WM factor. These data emphasise the distinctiveness between backward recall and n-back tasks.
期刊介绍:
Memory publishes high quality papers in all areas of memory research. This includes experimental studies of memory (including laboratory-based research, everyday memory studies, and applied memory research), developmental, educational, neuropsychological, clinical and social research on memory. By representing all significant areas of memory research, the journal cuts across the traditional distinctions of psychological research. Memory therefore provides a unique venue for memory researchers to communicate their findings and ideas both to peers within their own research tradition in the study of memory, and also to the wider range of research communities with direct interest in human memory.