> Chimps have more working memory than humans!?
>
> I saw a documentary that featured a really smart crow. They have tiny
> brains, but can understand and use tools. How long did it take us to
> invent the wheel?
>
> On Sep 21, 9:52 pm, Mike <
mikebk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fascinating. Thanks for posting. It makes sense from a computational point
> > of view: reasoning requires recursively confronting different pieces of
> > information, in a kind of trial&error. The wider the trial (storage and
> > coordination of that storage) the better the result.
> > What do you think of this?
>
> > Also, chimps have a better working memory than humans, and are indeed
> > observed to be extremely inventive in many experiments, often more than the
> > average human.
> > What do you think of this second idea? Confirmations and infirmations
> > welcome.
>
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:32 AM, genvirO <
carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > So, based on there findings they cited two important WM elements that
> > > are highly predictive of reasoning ability.
> > > 1. Storage in the context of processing
> > > 2. Coordination
>
> > > What do these two elements relate to? Well, the following info
> > > describes what is meant here based on the measures used in the study.
>
> > > 1. Storage in the context of processing tasks
>
> > > The "storage in the context of processing" component of the working
> > > memory model was assessed by dual tasks. One processing and one
> > > storage task were combined for each trial. The procedure was as
> > > follows: First, the materials to be remembered were presented one
> > > immediately after another (1-s inter-stimulus interval). Second,
> > > participants had to perform a series of CRTs described above, which
> > > were unrelated to the material to be remembered. The CRTs lasted for 5
> > > s (no matter how many trials the participants had performed within
> > > this time) to keep the time between learning and recall constant and
> > > to measure the recall independent of the processing speed. Finally,
> > > the participants were asked to recall the memory set (see Fig. 1).
>
> > > The materials to be remembered were either nouns, digits, patterns
> > > (3×3 matrix, partially filled), or spatial locations of dots. The
> > > stimuli always had to be recalled in the correct order. For dual tasks
> > > with verbal material nouns had to be recalled and, in between, CRT
> > > categories task had to be performed. The number of nouns to be
> > > remembered increased from 3 to 7. Numerical dual tasks combined CRT
> > > odd–even tasks and a series of digits to be remembered. Three items
> > > were administered for each memory load, whereas memory loads varied
> > > from 4 to 8 digits. Also, two spatial dual tasks were applied. The
> > > first one combined CRT pattern symmetry with a task where the spatial
> > > location of dots presented (within a rectangle frame) had to be
> > > remembered. In the course of the second spatial task, participants had
> > > to remember several partially filled 3×3 patterns and perform CRT
> > > arrows up–down tasks. The spatial dual tasks consisted of memory loads
> > > varying from 2 to 4, each level represented by five items.
>
> > > Two scores were obtained from these dual tasks: the number of elements
> > > correctly remembered (memory performance) and the log-transformed
> > > reaction times for the CRT subtasks. Since the correlations between
> > > these two subtask scores were low, and since it is common practice to
> > > evaluate storage and processing tasks according to memory performance
> > > only (e.g., Daneman & Carpenter, 1980), the analyses were based only
> > > on the dual tasks' memory scores.
>
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>
> > > 2. Coordination tasks
>
> > > The "coordination" component of the working memory model was measured
> > > by monitoring tasks. Changing relations between several independently
> > > changing objects had to be monitored. Participants were instructed to
> > > detect certain critical relations. In order to compute and to
> > > continuously update the relations between the objects, simultaneous
> > > access to them was required.2
>
> > > The verbal monitoring task consisted of a 3×3 matrix with a word in
> > > each of the nine cells. One randomly chosen word was replaced every 2
> > > s. The space bar had to be pressed whenever three rhyming words were
> > > presented in either the horizontal, vertical, or diagonal line. During
> > > one trial, 2 to 5 target rows appeared within 10 to 20 replacements.
> > > In the numerical monitoring task, three-digit numbers were presented
> > > in each of the 9 cells. Rows with equal last digits had to be
> > > detected. One randomly chosen number changed every 1.5 s. After each
> > > trial, feedback about hits, misses, and false alarms was presented.
> > > Scores were obtained by subtracting false alarms from hits.
>
> > > "Flight control" was the first spatial monitoring task. A number of
> > > airplanes (ranging from 5 to 9 during the 15 items) represented by
> > > triangles moved across the screen in various directions with 4
> > > different speeds. Mountains (clusters of brown squares) were located
> > > on the screen. Unpredictably, airplanes appeared on the border of the
> > > screen. Their flight direction maintained the same until they left the
> > > screen. The instruction was to monitor that no plane crashed either
> > > with another plane or a mountain. Plane movement could be stopped by
> > > pressing the space bar, then one plane had to be chosen by mouse click
> > > and redirected. Traffic started again after pressing the space bar.
> > > The participants were told that they started with 100 credit points at
> > > each trial. Each crash would cost 10 points and each movement stop 3
> > > points. The goal was to avoid crashes and to stop the planes as seldom
> > > and as briefly as possible. Duration of movement stops was also
> > > measured. Without interruption each trial lasted about 12 s. Feedback
> > > was given after each trial regarding the number of crashes, the
> > > remaining points, and the cumulative duration of movement stops.
> > > Scores were obtained by counting the number of crashes (see Fig. 2).
>
> > > "Finding squares," the second spatial coordination task, consisted of
> > > 8 to 12 red dots randomly located within a 10×10 matrix. Two randomly
> > > chosen dots changed their position every 1.5 s. Twenty items were
> > > presented. Participants had to press the space bar whenever four dots
> > > formed a square. Position and size of the square were not relevant.
> > > Scores were obtained by subtracting false alarms from hits.
>
> > > On Sep 22, 2:19 pm, genvirO <
carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Pretty interesting article!
> > > > ----------------------------------
>
> > > > (2005) Title: Reasoning=working memory=attention
>
> > > > Date - Available online 2 March 2005
> > > > Journal - Intelligence 33 (2005) 251–272
>
> > > > Link -
> > >
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/science/article/...
>
> > > > Abstract -
> > > > The purpose of this study was to clarify the relationship between
> > > > attention, components of working memory,
> > > > and reasoning. Therefore, twenty working memory tests, two attention
> > > > tests, and nine intelligence subtests were
> > > > administered to 135 students. Using structural equation modeling, we
> > > > were able to replicate a functional model of
> > > > working memory proposed by Oberauer, Suess, Wilhelm, and Wittmann
> > > > (2003) [Oberauer, K., Suess, H.-M.,
> > > > Wilhelm, O., & Wittmann, W. W. (2003). The multiple faces of working
> > > > memory: Storage, processing,
> > > > supervision, and coordination. Intelligence, 31, 167–193]. The study
> > > > also revealed a weak to moderate relationship
> > > > between the selectivity aspect of attention and working memory
> > > > components as well as the finding that
> > > > supervision was only moderately related to storage in the context of
> > > > processing and to coordination. No
> > > > significant path was found from attention to reasoning. Reasoning
> > > > could be significantly predicted by storage in
> > > > the context of processing and coordination. All in all, 95% of
> > > > reasoning variance could be explained.
> > > > Controlling for speed variance, the correlation between working memory
> > > > components and intelligence did not
> > > > decrease significantly.
>
> > > > Link -
> > >
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/science/article/...
>
> > > > Just for the sake of it, here's the discussion...
>
> > > > DISCUSSION:
>
> > > > The present study replicated the finding that "storage in the context
> > > > of processing" is the best predictor of reasoning. Furthermore, it was
> > > > revealed that "coordination" is also a significant predictor of
> > > > reasoning. "Supervision" and the "selectivity aspect of attention" had
> > > > only little or no impact on reasoning. Moreover, the variance
> > > > explained by the "selectivity aspect of attention" predicting
> > > > reasoning can be reduced to speed variance. The variance explained by
> > > > working memory components (especially "storage in the context of
> > > > processing" and "coordination") on reasoning was 95% regarding the
> > > > latent factors. However, using a multiple regression analysis, the
> > > > explained variance was reduced to 49%. This might be due to the
> > > > moderate construct reliability of all constructs and therefore, a big
> > > > correction of attenuation occurred.
>
> > > > Furthermore, this study replicated the functional facets of the model
> > > > proposed by Oberauer et al. (2003), but not the content facets.
> > > > Nevertheless, the well-known fact was replicated that the factor
> > > > "supervision/speed" correlated only moderately with the factors
> > > > "storage in the context of processing" and "coordination"
>
