Abstract
Examining the impact of maintenance on processing speed allows us to test whether storage and processing resources are shared. Comparing these relationships in children of different ages allows further insight into whether one or multiple resources for these operations must be assumed and whether remembering is proactive throughout childhood. We tested 185 4‐ to 6‐ and 8‐ to 10‐year‐old children using adaptive complex span tasks, in which simple judgments were interleaved between to‐be‐remembered items. The adaptiveness of our tasks ensured that all participants frequently correctly recalled the items. If storage and processing require a single resource, and if participants serially reactivate the memoranda between processing episodes, processing response times should increase with serial position of the processing judgment within lists. We observed different within‐list dynamics for each age group. Older children's processing judgments slowed gradually when more than two memory items were maintained. By contrast, younger children showed no evidence of slower processing with increasing memory load. Our results support models of working memory that assume that some common resource is responsible for verbal and spatial storage and processing. They also support the notion that remembering becomes more proactive as children mature.
Highlights
Our ability to remember novel information even when we are interrupted is a seminal, benchmark finding that must be explained by models of working memory (WM)
We present an analysis of the effects of accumulating memory load on processing task response times taken from two novel, adaptive complex span tasks (CSTs)
We analyzed response times for the processing components of CSTs recorded while participants correctly maintained verbal and spatial memoranda
Summary
Our ability to remember novel information even when we are interrupted is a seminal, benchmark finding that must be explained by models of working memory (WM). Multiple-component WM models[3] propose separate resources for storing verbal and visual–spatial information in addition to resources for controlling attention. Such models predict little or no interference between storage and processing operations,[4] at least under certain conditions.[5] In these models, some conflict is predicted between storage and processing when the sensory codes needed for mentally representing stimuli in both tasks overlap, if the processing task requires comparing a presented stimulus with a mental representation (e.g., rhyme judgments) or manipulating a mental representation (e.g., mental rotation[6]). Development of WM load effects represented or if the sensory domains needed for representation in each task are distinct, no interference should occur between processing and storage
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
