{"title":"工作记忆能力建模:神奇数字是 \"四\"、\"七\",还是取决于你在数什么?","authors":"Sergio Morra, Paola Patella, Lorenzo Muscella","doi":"10.5334/joc.387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Limited attentional capacity is essential to working memory. How its limit should be assessed is a debated issue. Five experiments compare Cowan's 4-units and Pascual-Leone's 7-units models of limited working memory capacity, with presentation time and attention to operative schemes as potential explanations of this discrepancy. Experiments 1a-1c used the Compound Stimuli Visual Information (CSVI) task, with long versus brief presentation. Capacity was estimated with the Bose-Einstein model, assuming a different number of attending acts in each condition. Participants' <i>k</i> estimates in both conditions were highly correlated and the means were not different, indicating that the same capacity is assessed in both conditions. Experiments 2 and 3 used the 5000-msec CSVI, and the Visual Array Task (VAT) in two conditions (5000- vs. 120-msec presentation). Capacity in the VAT was estimated with Morey's Bayesian method. Participants' <i>k</i> estimates in both VAT conditions were correlated, but the mean was higher with long presentation, suggesting that the long condition benefits from recoding or chunking. The <i>k</i> estimate in the CSVI correlated with the short VAT and (to a lesser degree in Exp.2) with the long VAT. The mean estimate of <i>k</i> in the CSVI was one unit more than in the short VAT. We conclude that the CSVI and the short VAT tap the same capacity, one unit of which in the short VAT is allocated to an operative scheme; we discuss how Cowan's and Pascual-Leone's views on limited capacity can be reconciled.</p>","PeriodicalId":32728,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognition","volume":"7 1","pages":"60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11259112/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modelling Working Memory Capacity: Is the Magical Number Four, Seven, or Does it Depend on What You Are Counting?\",\"authors\":\"Sergio Morra, Paola Patella, Lorenzo Muscella\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/joc.387\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Limited attentional capacity is essential to working memory. How its limit should be assessed is a debated issue. Five experiments compare Cowan's 4-units and Pascual-Leone's 7-units models of limited working memory capacity, with presentation time and attention to operative schemes as potential explanations of this discrepancy. Experiments 1a-1c used the Compound Stimuli Visual Information (CSVI) task, with long versus brief presentation. Capacity was estimated with the Bose-Einstein model, assuming a different number of attending acts in each condition. Participants' <i>k</i> estimates in both conditions were highly correlated and the means were not different, indicating that the same capacity is assessed in both conditions. Experiments 2 and 3 used the 5000-msec CSVI, and the Visual Array Task (VAT) in two conditions (5000- vs. 120-msec presentation). Capacity in the VAT was estimated with Morey's Bayesian method. Participants' <i>k</i> estimates in both VAT conditions were correlated, but the mean was higher with long presentation, suggesting that the long condition benefits from recoding or chunking. The <i>k</i> estimate in the CSVI correlated with the short VAT and (to a lesser degree in Exp.2) with the long VAT. The mean estimate of <i>k</i> in the CSVI was one unit more than in the short VAT. We conclude that the CSVI and the short VAT tap the same capacity, one unit of which in the short VAT is allocated to an operative scheme; we discuss how Cowan's and Pascual-Leone's views on limited capacity can be reconciled.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":32728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cognition\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11259112/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.387\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
有限的注意能力对工作记忆至关重要。如何评估其极限是一个有争议的问题。五项实验比较了考恩的 4 个单位和帕斯卡尔-莱昂的 7 个单位工作记忆能力有限模型,并将呈现时间和对操作方案的注意作为这一差异的潜在解释。实验 1a-1c 采用的是复合刺激视觉信息(CSVI)任务,呈现时间有长有短。容量是通过玻色-爱因斯坦模型估算的,假设在每种条件下都有不同数量的注意行为。参与者在两种条件下的 k 估计值高度相关,且平均值没有差异,这表明在两种条件下评估的容量是相同的。实验 2 和 3 使用了 5000 毫秒的 CSVI 和视觉阵列任务(VAT)两种条件(5000 毫秒和 120 毫秒)。VAT 中的容量是用莫雷贝叶斯方法估算的。参与者在两种 VAT 条件下的 k 估计值是相关的,但长时间呈现时的平均值更高,这表明长时间呈现条件下的 k 估计值得益于重新编码或分块。CSVI 中的 k 估计值与短 VAT 相关,与长 VAT 的相关程度较低(在 Exp.2 中)。CSVI 中 k 的平均估计值比短 VAT 中多一个单位。我们的结论是,CSVI 和短增值税挖掘了相同的容量,其中短增值税中的一个单位分配给了一个操作方案;我们讨论了如何协调 Cowan 和 Pascual-Leone 关于有限容量的观点。
Modelling Working Memory Capacity: Is the Magical Number Four, Seven, or Does it Depend on What You Are Counting?
Limited attentional capacity is essential to working memory. How its limit should be assessed is a debated issue. Five experiments compare Cowan's 4-units and Pascual-Leone's 7-units models of limited working memory capacity, with presentation time and attention to operative schemes as potential explanations of this discrepancy. Experiments 1a-1c used the Compound Stimuli Visual Information (CSVI) task, with long versus brief presentation. Capacity was estimated with the Bose-Einstein model, assuming a different number of attending acts in each condition. Participants' k estimates in both conditions were highly correlated and the means were not different, indicating that the same capacity is assessed in both conditions. Experiments 2 and 3 used the 5000-msec CSVI, and the Visual Array Task (VAT) in two conditions (5000- vs. 120-msec presentation). Capacity in the VAT was estimated with Morey's Bayesian method. Participants' k estimates in both VAT conditions were correlated, but the mean was higher with long presentation, suggesting that the long condition benefits from recoding or chunking. The k estimate in the CSVI correlated with the short VAT and (to a lesser degree in Exp.2) with the long VAT. The mean estimate of k in the CSVI was one unit more than in the short VAT. We conclude that the CSVI and the short VAT tap the same capacity, one unit of which in the short VAT is allocated to an operative scheme; we discuss how Cowan's and Pascual-Leone's views on limited capacity can be reconciled.