Literature DB >> 17972736

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

Gregory J H Colflesh1, Andrew R A Conway.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17972736     DOI: 10.3758/bf03196824

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  9 in total

1.  The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: the importance of working memory capacity.

Authors:  A R Conway; N Cowan; M F Bunting
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-06

2.  A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity.

Authors:  M J Kane; M K Bleckley; A R Conway; R W Engle
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2001-06

Review 3.  The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: an individual-differences perspective.

Authors:  Michael J Kane; Randall W Engle
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-12

4.  Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference.

Authors:  Michael J Kane; Randall W Engle
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2003-03

5.  The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning.

Authors:  Michael J Kane; David Z Hambrick; Stephen W Tuholski; Oliver Wilhelm; Tabitha W Payne; Randall W Engle
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2004-06

6.  Individual differences in working memory capacity predict visual attention allocation.

Authors:  M Kathryn Bleckley; Francis T Durso; Jerry M Crutchfield; Randall W Engle; Maya M Khanna
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-12

7.  Working memory capacity and the antisaccade task: individual differences in voluntary saccade control.

Authors:  Nash Unsworth; Josef C Schrock; Randall W Engle
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 8.  Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide.

Authors:  Andrew R A Conway; Michael J Kane; Michael F Bunting; D Zach Hambrick; Oliver Wilhelm; Randall W Engle
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-10

9.  The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: how frequent are attention shifts to one's name in an irrelevant auditory channel?

Authors:  N Wood; N Cowan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 3.051

  9 in total
  25 in total

1.  Drifting from slow to "D'oh!": working memory capacity and mind wandering predict extreme reaction times and executive control errors.

Authors:  Jennifer C McVay; Michael J Kane
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Cortical potentials in an auditory oddball task reflect individual differences in working memory capacity.

Authors:  Kate A Yurgil; Edward J Golob
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 4.016

3.  Normal hearing is not enough to guarantee robust encoding of suprathreshold features important in everyday communication.

Authors:  Dorea Ruggles; Hari Bharadwaj; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-08-15       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  A locus coeruleus-norepinephrine account of individual differences in working memory capacity and attention control.

Authors:  Nash Unsworth; Matthew K Robison
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-08

5.  Working memory differences in illusory recollection of critical lures.

Authors:  Michael T Bixter; Frances Daniel
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2013-07

6.  Effect of informational content of noise on speech representation in the aging midbrain and cortex.

Authors:  Alessandro Presacco; Jonathan Z Simon; Samira Anderson
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Carving executive control at its joints: Working memory capacity predicts stimulus-stimulus, but not stimulus-response, conflict.

Authors:  Matt E Meier; Michael J Kane
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Working Memory Capacity, Mind Wandering, and Creative Cognition: An Individual-Differences Investigation into the Benefits of Controlled Versus Spontaneous Thought.

Authors:  Bridget A Smeekens; Michael J Kane
Journal:  Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts       Date:  2016-02-15

9.  Early auditory evoked potential is modulated by selective attention and related to individual differences in visual working memory capacity.

Authors:  Ryan J Giuliano; Christina M Karns; Helen J Neville; Steven A Hillyard
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  Older adults do not notice their names: a new twist to a classic attention task.

Authors:  Moshe Naveh-Benjamin; Angela Kilb; Geoffrey B Maddox; Jenna Thomas; Hope C Fine; Tina Chen; Nelson Cowan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 3.051

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.