PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10442867

What develops in working memory? A life span perspective.

Abstract

This study investigated whether working-memory (WM) span differences across age are attributable to specific or general processing functions. The study compared 9 age groups (6, 8, 10, 13, 16, 24, 35, 45, 57 years) on verbal and visuospatial WM performance under initial (no probes or cues), gain (cues that bring performance to an asymptotic level), and maintenance conditions (asymptotic conditions without cues). (a) Age-related performance differences in WM were found across all conditions and were not isolated to specific processes, (b) significant performance differences remained among age groups on gain and maintenance conditions, and (c) the gain (accessing new information) and maintenance conditions (maintenance of old information) for verbal and visuospatial WM tasks contributed independent variance to age-related performance. The results support a general capacity explanation of age-related differences. These differences in capacity reflect demands placed on both the accessing of new information and the maintenance of old information.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H L Swanson. 1999. What develops in working memory? A life span perspective.. https://doi.org/10.1037/%2F0012-1649.35.4.986

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

How well do second-year students learn physical diagnosis? Observational study of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE).

BACKGROUND: Little is known about using the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in physical diagnosis courses. The purpose of this study was to describe student performance on an OSCE in a physical diagnosis course. METHODS: Cross-sectional study at Harvard Medical School, 1997-1999, for 489 second-year students. RESULTS: Average total OSCE score was 57% (range 39-75%). Among clinical skills, students scored highest on patient interaction (72%), followed by examination technique (65%), abnormality identification (62%), history-taking (60%), patient presentation (60%), physical examination knowledge (47%), and differential diagnosis (40%) (p <.0001). Among 16 OSCE stations, scores ranged from 70% for arthritis to 29% for calf pain (p <.0001). Teaching sites accounted for larger adjusted differences in station scores, up to 28%, than in skill scores (9%) (p <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Students scored higher on interpersonal and technical skills than on interpretive or integrative skills. Station scores identified specific content that needs improved teaching.

Achievement↗