Kane M J, Bleckley M K, Conway A R, Engle R W
Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, USA.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Jun;130(2):169-83. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.130.2.169.
In 2 experiments the authors examined whether individual differences in working-memory (WM) capacity are related to attentional control. Experiment 1 tested high- and low-WM-span (high-span and low-span) participants in a prosaccade task, in which a visual cue appeared in the same location as a subsequent to-be-identified target letter, and in an antisaccade task, in which a target appeared opposite the cued location. Span groups identified targets equally well in the prosaccade task, reflecting equivalence in automatic orienting. However, low-span participants were slower and less accurate than high-span participants in the antisaccade task, reflecting differences in attentional control. Experiment 2 measured eye movements across a long antisaccade session. Low-span participants made slower and more erroneous saccades than did high-span participants. In both experiments, low-span participants performed poorly when task switching from antisaccade to prosaccade blocks. The findings support a controlled-attention view of WM capacity.
在两项实验中，作者研究了工作记忆（WM）容量的个体差异是否与注意力控制有关。实验1在一个前扫视任务和一个反扫视任务中测试了高WM广度（高广度）和低WM广度（低广度）的参与者。在前扫视任务中，视觉线索出现在随后要识别的目标字母的相同位置；在反扫视任务中，目标出现在线索位置的对面。广度组在前扫视任务中识别目标的表现同样出色，这反映了自动定向的等效性。然而，在反扫视任务中，低广度参与者比高广度参与者速度更慢且准确性更低，这反映了注意力控制方面的差异。实验2测量了在一个长时间的反扫视过程中的眼动。低广度参与者比高广度参与者做出的扫视更慢且错误更多。在两项实验中，当任务从反扫视块切换到前扫视块时，低广度参与者表现不佳。这些发现支持了对WM容量的控制性注意观点。
