Is working memory domain-general or domain-specific?

The significance of working memory (WM) in understanding human cognition cannot be overemphasized, as it underlies a large array of abilities from reading to reasoning. A key debate in the WM literature has been the domain-generality or specificity of WM. Aside from its theoretical significance, this debate is important because of its practical implications, including brain training and analysis of individual differences. The diverse body of evidence from behavioral and neural sources, that in some cases point to domain-generality and in other cases to domain-specificity of WM, signals the inadequacy of framing the question simply as 'is WM domain-general or domain-specific?'. The current paper focuses on this problem. We use the latest theoretical and empirical advances in the field to propose a taxonomy for domain-generality/specificity of WM, as a suitable framework to guide future research on this topic. Given the fundamental role of working memory (WM) in all domains of cognition, a central question has been whether WM is domain-general. However, the term 'domain-general' has been used in different, and sometimes misleading, ways. By reviewing recent evidence and biologically plausible models of WM, we show that the level of domain-generality varies substantially between three facets of WM: in terms of computations, WM is largely domain-general. In terms of neural correlates, it contains both domain-general and domain-specific elements. Finally, in terms of application, it is mostly domain-specific. This variance encourages a shift of focus towards uncovering domain-general computational principles and away from domain-general approaches to the analysis of individual differences and WM training, favoring newer perspectives, such as training-as-skill-learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]