Does process overlap theory replace the issues of general intelligence with the issues of attentional control?

Individual differences in attention control: A meta-analysis and re-analysis of latent variable studies

A meta-analysis and re-analysis of prior latent variable studies was conducted in order to assess whether there is evidence for individual differences in broad attention control abilities. Data from 90 independent samples and over 23,000 participants suggested that most (84.4%) prior studies find evidence for a coherent attention control factor with average factor loadings of .51. This latent attention control factor was related to other cognitive ability factors including working memory, shifting, fluid intelligence, long-term memory, reading comprehension, and processing speed, as well as to self-reports of task-unrelated thoughts and task specific motivation. Further re-analyses and meta-analyses suggest that the results remained largely unchanged when considering various possible measurement issues. Examining the factor structure of attention control suggested evidence for sub-components of attention control (restraining, constraining and sustaining attention) which could be accounted for a by a higher-order factor. Additional re-analyses suggested that attention control represents a broad ability within models of cognitive abilities. Overall, these results provide evidence for attention control abilities as an important individual differences construct.

Working memory load affects intelligence test performance by reducing the strength of relational item bindings and impairing the filtering of irrelevant information

There is a broad consensus that individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) are strongly related to individual differences in intelligence. However, correlational studies do not allow conclusions about the causal nature of the relationship between WMC and fluid intelligence. While research on the cognitive basis of intelligence typically assumes that simpler lower-level cognitive processes contribute to individual differences in higher-order reasoning processes, a reversed causality or a third variable giving rise to two intrinsically uncorrelated variables may exist. In two studies (n₁ = 65, n₂ = 113), we investigated the causal nature of the relationship between WMC and intelligence by assessing the experimental effect of working memory load on intelligence test performance. Moreover, we tested if the effect of working memory load on intelligence test performance increased under time constraints, as previous studies have shown that the association between the two constructs increases if intelligence tests are administered with a strict time limit. We show that working memory load impaired intelligence test performance, but that this experimental effect was not affected by time constraints, which suggests that the experimental manipulations of working memory capacity and processing time did not affect the same underlying cognitive process. Using a computational modeling approach, we demonstrated that external memory load affected both the building and maintenance of relational item bindings and the filtering of irrelevant information in working memory. Our results confirm that WMC causally contributes to higher-order reasoning processes. Moreover, they support the hypothesis that working memory capacity in general and the abilities to maintain arbitrary bindings and to disengage from irrelevant information in particular are intrinsically related to intelligence.

Fluid Intelligence Is (Much) More than Working Memory Capacity: An Experimental Analysis

Empirical evidence suggests a great positive association between measures of fluid intelligence and working memory capacity, which implied to some researchers that fluid intelligence is little more than working memory. Because this conclusion is mostly based on correlation analysis, a causal relationship between fluid intelligence and working memory has not yet been established. The aim of the present study was therefore to provide an experimental analysis of this relationship. In a first study, 60 participants worked on items of the Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) while simultaneously engaging in one of four secondary tasks to load specific components of the working memory system. There was a diminishing effect of loading the central executive on the APM performance, which could explain 15% of the variance in the APM score. In a second study, we used the same experimental manipulations but replaced the dependent variable with complex working memory span tasks from three different domains. There was also a diminishing effect of the experimental manipulation on span task performance, which could now explain 40% of the variance. These findings suggest a causal effect of working memory functioning on fluid intelligence test performance, but they also imply that factors other than working memory functioning must contribute to fluid intelligence.

Interference control in working memory: Evidence for discriminant validity between removal and inhibition tasks

Working memory (WM) is a system for maintenance of and access to a limited number of goal-relevant representations in the service of higher cognition. Because of its limited capacity, WM requires interference-control processes, allowing us to avoid being distracted by irrelevant information. Recent research has proposed two interference-control processes, which are conceptually similar: (1) an active, item-wise removal process assumed to remove no-longer relevant information from WM, and (2) an inhibitory process assumed to suppress the activation of distractors against competing, goal-relevant representations. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the tasks used to assess removal and inhibition measure the same interference-control construct. Results showed acceptable to good reliabilities for nearly all measures. Similar to previous studies, a structural equation modeling approach identified a reliable latent variable of removal. However, also similar to some previous studies, no latent variable of inhibition could be established. This was the case even when the correlation matrix used to compute the latent variable of inhibition was disattenuated for imperfect reliability. Critically, the individual measures of inhibition were unrelated to the latent variable of removal. These results provide tentative support for the notion that removal is not related to the interference-control processes assessed in inhibition tasks. This suggests that the removal process should be conceptualized as a process independent of the concept of inhibition, as proposed in computational WM models that implement removal as the "unbinding" of a WM item from the context in which it occurred.