The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity

By Andrew R. A. Conway, Nelson Cowan, Michael F. Bunting. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2001

919 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a2f5839f29c4939e65f0b86cb536839db3aaeece

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. (2004, background): “(1999) and Conway et al. (2002) show that the variance common to WMC and STM constructs relates less strongly to Gf than does the residual variance from WMC.”
Individual differences in susceptibility to the effects of speech on reading comprehension (2010, methodology): “Conway et al. (2001) used an Operation span (OSPAN) task to differentiate their participants as either having low or high working memory span.”
On the capacity of attention: its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive aptitudes. (2005, background): “Indeed, the dependent measure of the ability to maintain a goal differs widely from one test situation to the next (cf. Conway et al., 2001; Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Is working memory training effective? (2012, positive): “The complex span follows the same procedure, with the exception that a processing task must be completed in between the presentation of each to-be-remembered item. flash (Hutchison, 2007; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004).”
Object-based auditory and visual attention. (2008, background): “because of their intensity or distinctiveness) [ 41 ,44], which biases the intersegment competition.”
Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. (2004, background): “Conway, Cowan, and Bunting (2001) found that a greater number of low-span subjects (65”
Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. (2003, result): “Similar conclusions have been drawn from research on ‘low-level’ attention tasks that require little by the way of memory, per se , such as dichotic listening [21], Stroop color-naming [22], visual orienting [23], and negative priming [24].”
Role of Working‐Memory Capacity in Cognitive Control (2010, positive): “Conway, Cowan, and Bunting (2001) tested high- and low-WMC individuals on Moray’s task, with the subjects’ first name inserted by computer into the ignored ear.”
Trait and State Differences in Working Memory Capacity (2010, background): “Specifically, in one version of the task just outlined, Conway, Cowan, and Bunting (2001) found that high spans report hearing their name less frequently than low spans (20 and 65%, respectively).”
The cognitive neuroscience of creativity (2004, background): “…consciousness was approached in a similar manner (Markowitsch, 1995), being defined by selection of various attributes, such as self-reflection, attention, memory, perception, and arousal, which were ordered in a functional hierarchy with the frontal lobe necessary for the top attributes.”