Search

Two datasets of 110 young adults were examined to investigate the relationship between individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) and dynamic cognitive control. The results delve into the specific differences between high- and low-WMC individuals' ability to enact and maintain cognitive control using the AX version of the continuous performance test (AX-CPT). Compared to high-WMC individuals, low-WMC individuals: (a) made more errors, specifically to AX targets; (b) exhibited a partial shift to proactive control with more time-on-task; (c) had more exaggerated slower AX target responses in the tail of the response time distribution; and (d) were equally likely to adjust control after conflict. These results fit with the dual mechanisms of cognitive control theory and goal-maintenance account, and further clarify how individual differences in WMC manifests as intra-individual variability in cognitive control., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Working memory is important for maintaining critical information in an active state to guide future behavior. The executive-attention theory of working memory capacity (WMC; Engle & Kane, 2004) argues that goal maintenance is important for response selection when stimuli are associated with competing responses. Braver, Burgess, and Gray (2007) have labeled this type of preparatory activity proactive control. Previous WMC studies have not allowed individuals to use goal information to prepare a specific response in advance of the stimulus. The current experiment used different versions of a cue-probe task to examine the relationship between individual differences in WMC and proactive control. Across three versions of the AX version of the Continuous Performance Test, the proportion of targets was manipulated to affect both the predictive validity of the A cue and the prepotency of the target response to X probes. The results indicated that the high-WMC individuals used the cue information to prepare responses in advance only when a specific probe was likely to occur. In contrast, the performance of the low-WMC individuals was less dependent upon the cue and more contingent upon overall response frequencies. The results indicate that individual differences in WMC are related to proactive control and anticipation, and important for translating cognition into action., (© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)