The structure of working memory in young children and its relation to intelligence

• Published in: Journal of memory and language Vol. 92; pp. 183 - 201
• Main Authors: Gray, S., Green, S., Alt, M., Hogan, T., Kuo, T., Brinkley, S., Cowan, N.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.02.2017; Elsevier BV
• Subjects: Attention; Binding; Children; Children & youth; Common ground; English language; Episodic buffer; Information processing; Intelligence; Memory; Memory models; Nonverbal intelligence; Phonological loop; Reasoning; Short term memory; Visual processing; Visual task performance; Visuospatial sketchpad; Working memory; Phonological loop; Working memory; Children; Nonverbal intelligence; Episodic buffer; Visuospatial sketchpad; episodic buffer; nonverbal intelligence; children; visuospatial sketchpad; working memory; phonological loop
• ISSN: 0749-596X; 1096-0821
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.06.004

•Tested the fit of three competing theoretical models of working memory in children.•Results suggest that working memory models are coming together on common ground.•No evidence for a separate episodic buffer factor (Baddeley, 2000).•Focus of attention predicted fluid reasoning and visual processing intelligence. This study investigated the structure of working memory in young school-age children by testing the fit of three competing theoretical models using a wide variety of tasks. The best fitting models were then used to assess the relationship between working memory and nonverbal measures of fluid reasoning (Gf) and visual processing (Gv) intelligence. One hundred sixty-eight English-speaking 7–9year olds with typical development, from three states, participated. Results showed that Cowan’s three-factor embedded processes model fit the data slightly better than Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) three-factor model (specified according to Baddeley, 1986) and decisively better than Baddeley’s (2000) four-factor model that included an episodic buffer. The focus of attention factor in Cowan’s model was a significant predictor of Gf and Gv. The results suggest that the focus of attention, rather than storage, drives the relationship between working memory, Gf, and Gv in young school-age children. Our results do not rule out the Baddeley and Hitch model, but they place constraints on both it and Cowan’s model. A common attentional component is needed for feature binding, running digit span, and visual short-term memory tasks; phonological storage is separate, as is a component of central executive processing involved in task manipulation. The results contribute to a zeitgeist in which working memory models are coming together on common ground (cf. Cowan, Saults, & Blume, 2014; Hu, Allen, Baddeley, & Hitch, 2016).