Modelos de variables latentes, modelación cognitiva y memoria de trabajo: un punto de encuentro

Rodríguez-Villagra, Odir Antonio

doi:10.15517/ap.v29i119.18850

Authors

Odir Antonio Rodríguez-Villagra Universidad de Costa Rica Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15517/ap.v29i119.18850

Keywords:

Latent variable models, formal cognitive models, psychometric, working memory

Abstract

Latent variable models and formal cognitive models share some elements of their object of study, various philosophical aspects, and some parts of their methodology. Nevertheless, little communication exists between their theories and findings. In order to highlight similarities and differences, this study implemented and tested a formal model proposing that interference among representations is a mechanism limiting working memory capacity (i.e., the interference model of Oberauer & Kliegl, 2006). Furthermore, the study incorporated an experimental manipulation to evaluate the role of the inhibition in prepotent responses and task switching in the interference model framework. These findings were used to expose some connections that could facilitate a rapprochement between formal cognitive models and psychometric models based on the latent variable theory.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Odir Antonio Rodríguez-Villagra, Universidad de Costa Rica

Investigador del Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas

Investigador del Centro de Investigación en Neurociencias

References

Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036-1060. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1036

Arendasy, M. E. & Sommer, M. (2005). The effect of different types of perceptual manipulations on the dimensionality of automatically generated figural matrices. Intelligence, 33, 307-324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.02.002

Arendasy, M. E. & Sommer, M. (2013). Reducing response elimination strategies enhances the construct validity of figural matrices. Intelligence, 41, 234-243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.006

Baddeley, A. D., Thomson, N., & Buchanan, M. (1975). Word length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 575-589. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80045-4

Barrouillet, P. & Camos, V. (2009). Interference: Unique source of forgetting in working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 145-146.Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71, 425-440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.002

Brown, G. D. A., Neath, I., & Chater, N. (2007). A ratio model of scale-invariant memory and identification. Psychological Review, 107, 127-181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.1.127

Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). New York; Springer-Verlag.

Camos, V., Lagner, P., & Barrouillet, P. (2009). Two maintenance mechanisms of verbal information in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 457-469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.06.002

Carpenter, P.A., Just, M.A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of processing in the Raven progressive matrices test. Psychological Review, 97, 404– 431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.97.3.404

Cattell, R.B. (1987). Abilities: Their structures, growth, and actions. New York: North-Holland.

Conrad, R. & Hull, A. J. (1964). Information, acoustic confusion and memory span. British Journal of Psychology, 55, 75-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1964.tb00899.x

Coopeland, D. E., & Radvansky, G. A. (2001). Phonological similarity in working memory. Memory & Cognition, 29, 774-776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200480

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87-185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulleting, 52, 281-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

Embretson, S. E. (1995). The role of working memory capacity and general control processes in intelligence. Intelligence, 20, 169–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(95)90031-4

Embretson, S. E. (2004). The second century of ability testing: Some predictions and speculations. Measurement, 2, 1-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0201_1

Embretson, S. E. (2010). Cognitive design systems: A structural modeling approach applied to developing a spatial ability test. In S. E. Embretson (Ed.), Measuring psychological constructs: Advances in model-based approaches (pp. 247-273). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/12074-011

Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309-331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.128.3.309

Farrell, S. & Lewandowsky, S. (2002). An endogenous distributed model of ordering in serial recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 59-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196257

Forstmann, B. U., Wagenmakers, E-J., Eichele, T., Brown, S., & Serences, J. T. (2011). Reciprocal relations between cognitive neuroscience and formal cognitive models: Opposites attract? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 272-279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.002

Friedman, N. P. & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference cognitive functions: A latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 101-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101

Garavan, H. (1998). Serial attention within working memory. Memory & Cognition, 26, 263-276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201138

Hasher, L., Zacks, R. T., & May, C. P. (1999). Inhibitory control, circadian arousal, and age. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat, (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 653–675). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1480.003.0032

Kvist, A., V. & Gustafsson, J-E. (2008). The relation between fluid intelligence and the general factor as a function of cultural background: A test of Cattell’s Investment theory. Intelligence, 36, 422-436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.08.004

Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity? Intelligence, 14, 389-433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(05)80012-1

Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Brown, G. D. A. (2009). Response to Barrouillet and Camos: Interference or decay in working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 146-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.003

Lobley, K. J., Baddeley, A. D., & Gathercole, S. E. (2005). Phonological similarity effect in verbal complex span. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1464-1478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000700

Luce, R. D. (1995). Four tensions concerning mathematical modeling in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 1-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.46.1.1

Markus, K. A. & Borsboom, D. (2013). Frontiers of test validity theory. Measurement, causation, and meaning. NY: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203501207

McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: an examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86, 287-330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.86.4.287

McElree, B., & Dosher, B. A. (1989). Serial position and set size in short-term memory: the time course of recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 346-373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.118.4.346

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13-103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education and National Council on Measurement in Education.

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., & Howerter, A. (2000). The unity and diversity of the executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140.Nairne, J. S. (1990). A feature model of immediate memory. Memory & Cognition, 18(3), 251-269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7

Nosofky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115, 39-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.115.1.39

Oberauer, K. (2003). Selective attention to elements in working memory. Experimental Psychology, 50(4), 257-269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1026//1618-3169.50.4.257

Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2006). A formal model of capacity limits in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(4), 601-626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.009

Oberauer, K. & Lewandowsky, S. (2011). Modeling working memory: A computational implementation of the Time-Based Resource-Sharing theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18,10-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0020-6

Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S., Farrell, S., Jarrold, C. & Greaves, M. (2012). Modeling working memory: An interference model of complex span. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 779-819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0272-4

Pages, M. P. A. & Norris, D. (1998). The primacy model: A new model of immediate serial recall. Psychological Review, 105, 761-781. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.105.4.761-781

Palladino, P., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Pazzaglia, F. (2001). Working memory and updating processes in reading comprehension. Memory &Cognition, 29(2), 344-354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194929

Primi, R. (2001). Complexity of geometric inductive reasoning tasks. Contribution to the understanding of fluid intelligence. Intelligence 30(1), 41–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00067-8

Psychometric Society. (2015). What is psychometrics? Retrieved from https://www.psychometricsociety.org/content/what-psychometrics

Ratcliff, R. & McKoon, G. (2007). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision task. Neural Computation, 20, 873-922. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420

Schmiedek, F., Hildebrandt, A., Lövdén, M., Wilhelm, O., & Lindenberger, U. (2009). Complex span versus updating tasks of working memory: The gap is not that deep. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1089-1096. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015730

Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.

Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550-592. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.108.3.550

Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern Applied Statistics with S (4th ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2

Wallsten, T. S., Pleskac, T. J., & Lejuez, C. W. (2011). Modeling behaviour in a clinical diagnostic sequential risk-taking task. Psychological Review, 112, 862-880. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.862

Wasserman, L. (2000). Bayesian model selection and model averaging. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 92-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1999.1278