↓ Skip to main content

Working memory capacity and redundant information processing efficiency

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Working memory capacity and redundant information processing efficiency
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00594
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J. Endres, Joseph W. Houpt, Chris Donkin, Peter R. Finn

Abstract

Working memory capacity (WMC) is typically measured by the amount of task-relevant information an individual can keep in mind while resisting distraction or interference from task-irrelevant information. The current research investigated the extent to which differences in WMC were associated with performance on a novel redundant memory probes (RMP) task that systematically varied the amount of to-be-remembered (targets) and to-be-ignored (distractor) information. The RMP task was designed to both facilitate and inhibit working memory search processes, as evidenced by differences in accuracy, response time, and Linear Ballistic Accumulator (LBA) model estimates of information processing efficiency. Participants (N = 170) completed standard intelligence tests and dual-span WMC tasks, along with the RMP task. As expected, accuracy, response-time, and LBA model results indicated memory search and retrieval processes were facilitated under redundant-target conditions, but also inhibited under mixed target/distractor and redundant-distractor conditions. Repeated measures analyses also indicated that, while individuals classified as high (n = 85) and low (n = 85) WMC did not differ in the magnitude of redundancy effects, groups did differ in the efficiency of memory search and retrieval processes overall. Results suggest that redundant information reliably facilitates and inhibits the efficiency or speed of working memory search, and these effects are independent of more general limits and individual differences in the capacity or space of working memory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 73 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 12%
Student > Master 9 12%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 11 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 10%
Neuroscience 7 9%
Psychology 7 9%
Physics and Astronomy 6 8%
Other 29 38%
Unknown 9 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,411,569
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,115
of 29,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,617
of 266,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#443
of 528 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,719 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,724 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 528 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.