Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29978205›Full record

ReviewLanguage, speech, and hearing services in schools2018

Theories of Working Memory: Differences in Definition, Degree of Modularity, Role of Attention, and Purpose.

Eryn J Adams, Anh T Nguyen, Nelson Cowan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eryn J AdamsDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia.
Anh T NguyenDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia.
Nelson CowanDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia.

Funding

Working memory, attention, and time: Childhood development and adult functionR01HD021338 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI COWAN, NELSON · 1988 to 2023
$7.2M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD021338
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to review and discuss theories of working memory with special attention to their relevance to language processing. Method: We begin with an overview of the concept of working memory itself and review some of the major theories. Then, we show how theories of working memory can be organized according to their stances on 3 major issues that distinguish them: modularity (on a continuum from domain-general to very modular), attention (on a continuum from automatic to completely attention demanding), and purpose (on a continuum from idiographic, or concerned with individual differences, to nomothetic, or concerned with group norms). We examine recent research that has a bearing on these distinctions. Results: Our review shows important differences between working memory theories that can be described according to positions on the 3 continua just noted. Conclusion: Once properly understood, working memory theories, methods, and data can serve as quite useful tools for language research.

Indexed as

LanguageMemory, Short-TermPsychological TheoryAttentionComprehensionHumans

Identifiers

PMID29978205
PMCPMC6105130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.