Cargando…

Item-Position Binding Capacity Limits and Word Limits in Working Memory: A Reanalysis of Oberauer (2019)

Oberauer (2019) suggested that the working memory capacity in word lists only limits the binding of words to serial positions, with no limit for the words themselves. I advocate a word item limit as a broad kind of binding of each word to the current trial. I propose that the word capacity limit can...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Cowan, Nelson
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Ubiquity Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9400706/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36072105
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.193
_version_ 1784772800277381120
author Cowan, Nelson
author_facet Cowan, Nelson
author_sort Cowan, Nelson
collection PubMed
description Oberauer (2019) suggested that the working memory capacity in word lists only limits the binding of words to serial positions, with no limit for the words themselves. I advocate a word item limit as a broad kind of binding of each word to the current trial. I propose that the word capacity limit can be observed in Oberauer’s data when binding of a word to the trial is crucial (Experiment 2, words drawn from a small pool and often repeated across trials), though probably much less so when this kind of binding is unimportant (Experiment 1, words drawn from a large pool and rarely repeated across trials). In Oberauer’s recognition procedure for lists of 2, 4, 6, or 8 words, the number of words in the response set was varied, including both words from the list (1, 2, 4, 6, or 8 of them) and words that were not from the list (0, 1, 2, or 4 of them). There was also a serial recall procedure. In a re-analysis of the data from Experiment 2, an overlooked item capacity limit was found that affected the distribution of erroneous responses. Specifically, when the correct answer was unknown to the participant (which happened more at longer list lengths), proportionally fewer words from the list were selected as responses; selection of non-list words increased. It is an important theoretical refinement of Oberauer’s position to include evidence of a word item capacity limit when the item-to-trial binding is crucial, as in his Experiment 2.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9400706
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Ubiquity Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94007062022-09-06 Item-Position Binding Capacity Limits and Word Limits in Working Memory: A Reanalysis of Oberauer (2019) Cowan, Nelson J Cogn Commentary Oberauer (2019) suggested that the working memory capacity in word lists only limits the binding of words to serial positions, with no limit for the words themselves. I advocate a word item limit as a broad kind of binding of each word to the current trial. I propose that the word capacity limit can be observed in Oberauer’s data when binding of a word to the trial is crucial (Experiment 2, words drawn from a small pool and often repeated across trials), though probably much less so when this kind of binding is unimportant (Experiment 1, words drawn from a large pool and rarely repeated across trials). In Oberauer’s recognition procedure for lists of 2, 4, 6, or 8 words, the number of words in the response set was varied, including both words from the list (1, 2, 4, 6, or 8 of them) and words that were not from the list (0, 1, 2, or 4 of them). There was also a serial recall procedure. In a re-analysis of the data from Experiment 2, an overlooked item capacity limit was found that affected the distribution of erroneous responses. Specifically, when the correct answer was unknown to the participant (which happened more at longer list lengths), proportionally fewer words from the list were selected as responses; selection of non-list words increased. It is an important theoretical refinement of Oberauer’s position to include evidence of a word item capacity limit when the item-to-trial binding is crucial, as in his Experiment 2. Ubiquity Press 2022-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9400706/ /pubmed/36072105 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.193 Text en Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Commentary
Cowan, Nelson
Item-Position Binding Capacity Limits and Word Limits in Working Memory: A Reanalysis of Oberauer (2019)
title Item-Position Binding Capacity Limits and Word Limits in Working Memory: A Reanalysis of Oberauer (2019)
title_full Item-Position Binding Capacity Limits and Word Limits in Working Memory: A Reanalysis of Oberauer (2019)
title_fullStr Item-Position Binding Capacity Limits and Word Limits in Working Memory: A Reanalysis of Oberauer (2019)
title_full_unstemmed Item-Position Binding Capacity Limits and Word Limits in Working Memory: A Reanalysis of Oberauer (2019)
title_short Item-Position Binding Capacity Limits and Word Limits in Working Memory: A Reanalysis of Oberauer (2019)
title_sort item-position binding capacity limits and word limits in working memory: a reanalysis of oberauer (2019)
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9400706/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36072105
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.193
work_keys_str_mv AT cowannelson itempositionbindingcapacitylimitsandwordlimitsinworkingmemoryareanalysisofoberauer2019