↓ Skip to main content

Promoting the experimental dialogue between working memory and chunking: Behavioral data and simulation

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Promoting the experimental dialogue between working memory and chunking: Behavioral data and simulation
Published in
Memory & Cognition, November 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13421-015-0572-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie Portrat, Alessandro Guida, Thierry Phénix, Benoît Lemaire

Abstract

Working memory (WM) is a cognitive system allowing short-term maintenance and processing of information. Maintaining information in WM consists, classically, in rehearsing or refreshing it. Chunking could also be considered as a maintenance mechanism. However, in the literature, it is more often used to explain performance than explicitly investigated within WM paradigms. Hence, the aim of the present paper was (1) to strengthen the experimental dialogue between WM and chunking, by studying the effect of acronyms in a computer-paced complex span task paradigm and (2) to formalize explicitly this dialogue within a computational model. Young adults performed a WM complex span task in which they had to maintain series of 7 letters for further recall while performing a concurrent location judgment task. The series to be remembered were either random strings of letters or strings containing a 3-letter acronym that appeared in position 1, 3, or 5 in the series. Together, the data and simulations provide a better understanding of the maintenance mechanisms taking place in WM and its interplay with long-term memory. Indeed, the behavioral WM performance lends evidence to the functional characteristics of chunking that seems to be, especially in a WM complex span task, an attentional time-based mechanism that certainly enhances WM performance but also competes with other processes at hand in WM. Computational simulations support and delineate such a conception by showing that searching for a chunk in long-term memory involves attentionally demanding subprocesses that essentially take place during the encoding phases of the task.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 42%
Neuroscience 7 14%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Linguistics 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,351,145
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#947
of 1,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,287
of 386,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#13
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 386,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.