↓ Skip to main content

Working Memory Capacity as a Dynamic Process

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Working Memory Capacity as a Dynamic Process
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00567
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanessa R. Simmering, Sammy Perone

Abstract

A well-known characteristic of working memory (WM) is its limited capacity. The source of such limitations, however, is a continued point of debate. Developmental research is positioned to address this debate by jointly identifying the source(s) of limitations and the mechanism(s) underlying capacity increases. Here we provide a cross-domain survey of studies and theories of WM capacity development, which reveals a complex picture: dozens of studies from 50 papers show nearly universal increases in capacity estimates with age, but marked variation across studies, tasks, and domains. We argue that the full pattern of performance cannot be captured through traditional approaches emphasizing single causes, or even multiple separable causes, underlying capacity development. Rather, we consider WM capacity as a dynamic process that emerges from a unified cognitive system flexibly adapting to the context and demands of each task. We conclude by enumerating specific challenges for researchers and theorists that will need to be met in order to move our understanding forward.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 154 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 21%
Researcher 24 15%
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Other 35 22%
Unknown 18 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 85 53%
Neuroscience 9 6%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Linguistics 4 3%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 28 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 June 2019.
All research outputs
#12,674,736
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,363
of 29,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,655
of 280,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#497
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 280,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.