Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:03:02.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Working Memory Capacity and Individual Differences in the Making of Reinstatement and Elaborative Inferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Juan Pablo Barreyro ,
Jazmín Cevasco ,
Débora Burín  and
Carlos Molinari Marotto
Juan Pablo Barreyro*
Affiliation:
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (Argentina)
Jazmín Cevasco
Affiliation:
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (Argentina)
Débora Burín
Affiliation:
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (Argentina)
Carlos Molinari Marotto
Affiliation:
Universidad de Buenos Aires (Argentina)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Juan Pablo Barreyro. Instituto de Investigaciones. Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Independencia 3065, Piso 3° Oficina 8 (1225). Buenos Aires (Argentina). Phone: (05411) 4822-5202. E-mail: jbarreyro@psi.uba.ar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the role of working memory capacity on the making of reinstatement and causal elaborative inferences during the reading of natural texts. In order to determine participants' working memory capacity, they were asked to take the reading span task before they took part in the study. Those participants that were identified as high or low working memory capacity readers were asked to perform a lexical decision task in two conditions: pre-inference and inference. In the pre-inference condition, target words representing reinstatement or causal elaborative inferences were presented immediately before the sentences that were predicted to prompt them. In the inference condition, the target words were presented immediately after the sentences that were predicted to prompt the inferences. Results indicated that, for the high working memory capacity readers, lexical decision times were faster at the inference compared to the pre-inference locations for both types of inferences. In the case of low working capacity readers, lexical decision times were faster at the inference compared to the pre-inference locations only for reinstatement inferences. These findings suggest that working memory capacity plays a role in the making of causal inferences during the comprehension of natural texts.

Este estudio investigó el rol de la capacidad de memoria de trabajo en la realización de inferencias de restablecimiento y elaborativas durante la lectura de textos naturales. Los participantes realizaron la tarea de amplitud lectora, y aquellos que fueron identificados como lectores de alta o baja capacidad de memoria de trabajo realizaron una tarea de decisión léxica en dos condiciones. En la condición de pre-inferencia, las palabras de prueba se presentaron inmediatamente antes de la oración que promovía la realización de la inferencia. En la condición de inferencia, las palabras de prueba se presentaron inmediatamente después de la oración que promovía la inferencia. Los resultados indicaron que los lectores de alta capacidad de memoria de trabajo tenían menores tiempos de reacción en la condición de inferencia en comparación con la condición de pre-inferencia para ambos tipos de inferencias. Los lectores de baja capacidad de memoria de trabajo tenían tiempos de reacción menores en la condición de inferencia en comparación con la condición de pre-inferencia, solo en el caso de las inferencias de restablecimiento. Estos hallazgos sugieren que la capacidad de memoria de trabajo tiene un rol en la realización de inferencias causales durante la comprensión de textos naturales.

Keywords

working memory capacitycausal elaborative inferencesreinstatement inferencescapacidad de memoria de trabajoinferencias causales elaborativasinferencias repositivas
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , July 2012 , pp. 471 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barreyro, J. P., Burin, D. I., & Duarte, D. A. (2009). Capacidad de la memoria de trabajo verbal. Validez y fiabilidad de una tarea de amplitud de lectura [Verbal working memory capacity. Validity and reliability of a reading span task]. Interdisciplinaria, 26, 207–228.Google Scholar
Calvo, M. G. (2001). Working memory and inferences: Evidence from eye fixations during reading. Memory, 9, 365–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658210143000083Google Scholar
Calvo, M. G. (2005). Relative contribution of vocabulary knowledge and working memory span to elaborative inferences in reading. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 53–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2004.07.002Google Scholar
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97, 404–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.97.3.404Google Scholar
Cook, A. E., Gueraud, S., Was, C., & O'Brien, E. J. (2007). Foregrounding effects during reading. Discourse Processes, 44, 91–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638530701498945Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6Google Scholar
Estévez, A., & Calvo, M. G. (2000). Working memory capacity and time course of predicive inference. Memory, 8, 51–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096582100387704Google Scholar
Friedman, N. P., & Mikaye, A. (2004). The Reading Span Test and its predictive power for reading comprehension ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 136–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.008Google Scholar
Gerrig, R. J., & O'Brien, E. J. (2005). The scope of memory-based processing. Discourse Processes, 39, 225–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651681Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Magliano, J. P., & Haberlandt, K. (1994). Psychological sudies of naturalistic text. In van Oostendorp, H. & Zwaan, R. A. (Eds.), Naturalistic text comprehension (pp. 9–33). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Grimm, J., & Grimm, W. (2000). Cuentos [Fables] (Selection by H. Gebert from 1st edition Kinder- und Hausmärchen). Barcelona, Spain: Ediciones B. (Orig. 1812).Google Scholar
Guéraud, S., Harmon, M. E., & Peracchi, K. A. (2005). Updating situation models: The memory-based contribution. Discourse Processes, 39, 243–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651682Google Scholar
Guéraud, S., Tapiero, I., & O'Brien, E. J. (2008). Context and the activation of predictive inferences. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 351–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmon Vukic, M., Guéraud, S., Lassonde, K. A., & O'Brien, E. J. (2009). The activation and instantiation of instrumental inferences. Discourse Processes, 46, 467–490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959661Google Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.99.1.122Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Keller, T. A. (1996). The capacity theory of comprehension: New frontiers of evidence and arguments. Psychological Review, 103, 773–780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.103.4.773Google Scholar
Lassonde, K. A., & O'Brien, E. J. (2009). Contextual specificity in the activation of predictive inferences. Discourse Processes, 46, 426–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959620Google Scholar
Linderholm, T. (2002). Predictive inference making as a function of working memory capacity and causal text constraints. Discourse Processes, 34, 259–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3403_2Google Scholar
Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., van den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on more- and less-skilled readers' comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 525–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_4Google Scholar
Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778–784. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.778Google Scholar
Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 251–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2103_02Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., de Vega, M., & O'Reilly, T. (2007). Comprehension skill, inference making, and the role of knowledge. In Schmalhofer, F. & Perfetti, C.A. (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 233–251). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In Ross, B. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York, NY: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 465–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.465Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., & O'Reilly, T. (2009). Theories of comprehension skill: Knowledge and strategies versus capacity and suppression. In Columbus, A. M. (Ed.), Advances in Psychology Research. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., & Scott, J. L. (2001). Working memory capacity and strategy use. Memory & Cognition, 29, 10–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03195736Google Scholar
Millis, K. K., Magliano, J. P., & Todaro, S. (2006). Measuring discourse-level processes with verbal protocols and latent semantic analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 225–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_2Google Scholar
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Toward unified theories of working memory. Emerging general consensus, unresolved theoretical issues, and future research directions. In Miyake, A. & Shah, P. (Comp.), Models of working memory. Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 442–481). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O'Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Gueraud, S. (2010). Accessibility of outdated information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 979–991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019763Google Scholar
O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638530709336895Google Scholar
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003Google Scholar
Peracchi, K. A., & O'Brien, E. J. (2004). Character profiles and the activation of predictive inferences. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1044–1052. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196880Google Scholar
Schneider, W. (1988). Micro experimental laboratory: An integrated system for IBM-PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 20, 206–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03203833Google Scholar
Singer, M., Andrusiak, P., Reisdorf, P., & Black, N. L. (1992). Individual differences in bridging inference processes. Memory & Cognition, 20, 539–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03199586Google Scholar
Singer, M., & Ritchot, K. (1996). The role of working memory capacity and knowledge access in text inference processing. Memory & Cognition, 24, 733–743. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03201098Google Scholar
Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L. L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90048-8Google Scholar
van den Broek, P. (1990). The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference making in text comprehension. In Balota, D. A., d'Arcais, G. B. Flores, & Rayner, K. (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 423–445). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van den Broek, P. (1994). Comprehension and memory of narrative texts: Inferences and coherence. In Gernsbacher, M.A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 539–588). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
van den Broek, P., Rohleder, L., & Narváez, D. (1996). Causal inferences in the comprehension of literary text. In: Kreuz, R. J. & MacNealy, M. S. (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 179–200). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Virtue, S., van den Broek, P., & Linderholm, T. (2006). Hemispheric processing of inferences: The effects of textual constraint and working-memory capacity. Memory and Cognition, 34, 1341–1354. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193276Google Scholar