↓ Skip to main content

Working memory and strategies in syllogistic-reasoning tasks

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, January 1993
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
199 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
Working memory and strategies in syllogistic-reasoning tasks
Published in
Memory & Cognition, January 1993
DOI 10.3758/bf03211170
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. J. Gilhooly, R. H. Logie, N. E. Wetherick, V. Wynn

Abstract

It has often been asserted that working-memory limitations are a major factor contributing to problem difficulty; for example, Johnson-Laird's (1983) mental-models theory appeals to working-memory limitations to explain the difficulty of syllogistic reasoning. However, few studies have directly explored working memory in problem solving in general or syllogistic reasoning in particular. This paper reports two studies. In the first, working-memory load was varied by presenting syllogistic tasks either verbally or visually (so that the premises were continuously available for inspection). A significant effect of memory load was obtained. In the second study, premises were presented visually for a subject-determined time. Dual-task methods were used to assess the role of working-memory components, as identified in Baddeley's (1986) model. Syllogistic performance was disrupted by concurrent random-number generation but not by concurrent articulatory suppression or by concurrent tapping in a preset pattern. Furthermore, the concurrent syllogism task interfered with random generation and to a lesser extent with articulatory suppression, but not with tapping. We conclude that while the central-executive component of working memory played a major role in the syllogistic-task performance reported here, the articulatory loop had a lesser role, and the visuospatial scratch pad was not involved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Professor 6 8%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 45 59%
Philosophy 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 14 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,765,617
of 23,864,146 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#122
of 1,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#908
of 66,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,864,146 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,586 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 66,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them