Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, 210 McAlester Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Apr;18(2):324-30. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0055-3.
Although the measurement of working memory capacity is crucial to understanding working memory and its interaction with other cognitive faculties, there are inconsistencies in the literature on how to measure capacity. We address the measurement in the change detection paradigm, popularized by Luck and Vogel (Nature, 390, 279-281, 1997). Two measures for this task-from Pashler (Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 369-378, 1988) and Cowan (The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87-114, 2001), respectively-have been used interchangeably, even though they may yield qualitatively different conclusions. We show that the choice between these two measures is not arbitrary. Although they are motivated by the same underlying discrete-slots working memory model, each is applicable only to a specific task; the two are never interchangeable. In the course of deriving these measures, we discuss subtle but consequential flaws in the underlying discrete-slots model. These flaws motivate revision in the modal model and capacity measures.
尽管工作记忆容量的测量对于理解工作记忆及其与其他认知能力的相互作用至关重要，但在如何测量容量方面，文献中存在不一致之处。我们在 Luck 和 Vogel（《自然》，390，279-281，1997）推广的变化检测范式中解决了这个问题。这个任务的两个度量标准——分别来自 Pashler（《感知与心理物理学》，44，369-378，1988）和 Cowan（《行为与脑科学》，24，87-114，2001）——可以互换使用，尽管它们可能得出定性不同的结论。我们表明，这两种度量标准之间的选择不是任意的。尽管它们都是基于相同的离散槽工作记忆模型，但每个标准仅适用于特定的任务；这两者永远不能互换。在推导这些度量标准的过程中，我们讨论了基本离散槽模型中的细微但重要的缺陷。这些缺陷促使模态模型和容量度量标准进行修订。
