Burgoyne Alexander P, Frank David J, Macnamara Brooke N
Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO), Alexandria, VA, 22314, USA.
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2025 Jun;32(3):1337-1351. doi: 10.3758/s13423-024-02622-0. Epub 2024 Dec 4.
Psychologists and neuroscientists often use complex span tasks or the n-back to measure working memory capacity. At first glance, both tasks require many cognitive processes attributed to the construct, including the maintenance of information amidst interference. Nevertheless, evidence for their convergent validity is mixed. This poses consequences for the interpretation of working memory performance in cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology, applied psychology, and executive functioning research. We recruited a large and diverse sample using a multisite approach (N = 1,272; community and university participants) and had them complete multiple working memory capacity, updating, and fluid intelligence tests. We found strong evidence for a dissociation between complex span and n-back tests, and more broadly, between working memory capacity and updating factors. Observed correlations between complex span and n-back performance were modest (r̄ = .25), and at the latent level, the two factors only shared 20% of their variance. Each explained unique variance in fluid intelligence, and each was more strongly related to fluid intelligence than to each other, with updating measures demonstrating stronger relations to fluid intelligence. These results were interpreted via the disengagement hypothesis. What distinguishes updating measures from working memory capacity measures is their relative emphasis on disengagement from outdated information; disengagement drives their strong relation with fluid intelligence because problem-solving requires generating hypotheses but also discarding those discovered to be false. We suggest that researchers who want to measure and draw conclusions about working memory capacity or updating should not use complex span tasks and the n-back interchangeably.
心理学家和神经科学家经常使用复杂广度任务或n-back任务来测量工作记忆容量。乍一看，这两种任务都需要许多归因于该结构的认知过程，包括在干扰中维持信息。然而，它们的聚合效度证据并不一致。这给认知神经科学、发展心理学、应用心理学和执行功能研究中工作记忆表现的解释带来了影响。我们采用多地点方法招募了一个规模大且多样化的样本（N = 1272；社区和大学参与者），并让他们完成多项工作记忆容量、更新和流体智力测试。我们发现了有力证据，证明复杂广度测试和n-back测试之间存在分离，更广泛地说，工作记忆容量和更新因素之间也存在分离。观察到的复杂广度和n-back表现之间的相关性适中（r̄ = 0.25），在潜在层面，这两个因素仅共享20%的方差。它们各自解释流体智力中的独特方差，且各自与流体智力的关系比彼此之间更强，更新测量与流体智力的关系更为紧密。这些结果通过脱离假说进行了解释。更新测量与工作记忆容量测量的区别在于它们相对更强调从过时信息中脱离；脱离驱动了它们与流体智力的紧密关系，因为解决问题不仅需要提出假设，还需要摒弃那些被发现是错误的假设。我们建议，想要测量工作记忆容量或更新并得出结论的研究人员不应将复杂广度任务和n-back任务交替使用。
