Kane Michael J, Miyake Tina M
Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402-6170, USA.
Mem Cognit. 2007 Jul;35(5):1136-50. doi: 10.3758/bf03193484.
Three experiments tested whether a modified version of the Clustered Conceptual Span task (H. J. Haarmann, E. J. Davelaar, & M. Usher, 2003), which ostensibly requires active maintenance of semantic representations, predicted individual differences in higher-order cognitive abilities better than short-term memory (STM) span tasks or nonsemantic versions of the "Conceptual" task did. Nonsemantic Conceptual tasks presented short word lists clustered by color, first letter, or initial vowel sound, and cued subjects to recall only 1 of 3 clusters from each list; the Semantic task clustered words by taxonomic category. The Semantic Conceptual task generally failed to predict incremental variance in either verbal abilities or general fluid intelligence beyond the other Conceptual tasks or STM span tasks. Although the Semantic task showed a stronger relation to working memory span tasks than did the nonsemantic tasks (Experiment 3), that stronger relation did not translate into strong prediction of cognitive individual differences.
三项实验检验了聚类概念广度任务(H. J. 哈曼、E. J. 达韦拉尔和M. 厄舍,2003年)的一个修改版本是否比短期记忆(STM)广度任务或“概念”任务的非语义版本能更好地预测高阶认知能力的个体差异,该修改版本表面上需要对语义表征进行主动维持。非语义概念任务呈现按颜色、首字母或初始元音发音聚类的短单词列表,并提示受试者从每个列表中仅回忆3个聚类中的1个;语义任务按分类类别对单词进行聚类。除了其他概念任务或STM广度任务之外,语义概念任务通常无法预测言语能力或一般流体智力中的增量方差。尽管语义任务与工作记忆广度任务的关系比非语义任务更强(实验3),但这种更强的关系并未转化为对认知个体差异的有力预测。