Reassessing working memory: comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996).

By Maryellen C. MacDonald, Morten H. Christiansen. Psychology Review, 2002

716 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a95a623b3193af3e8922534ceb3c52542b592c9e

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

Language Is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper (2009, background): “…to regularization of high-frequency forms (Bybee, 1995, 2001, 2007); it also includes the role of probability in syntactic and lexical processing (Ellis, 2002; Jurafsky, 2003; MacDonald & Christiansen, 2002) and the strong role played by frequency of use in grammaticalization (Bybee, 2003).”
Online Syntactic Storage Costs in Sentence Comprehension. (2005, background): “Dynamic models, such as simple recurrent networks (e.g., Elman, 1991), predict an advantage of regular (the predominant main clause word order) over irregular word order, irrespective of storage cost (e.g., MacDonald & Christiansen, 2002).”
Why the Simple View of Reading Is Not Simplistic: Unpacking Component Skills of Reading Using a Direct and Indirect Effect Model of Reading (DIER) (2017, background): “…working memory has been hypothesized as necessary for language skills such as vocabulary (Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993; Gathercole et al., 1999), oral language has been argued to be necessary for working memory tasks as well (MacDonald & Christiansen, 2002).”
For Whom the Mind Wanders, and When (2007, background): “…they are not predicted by nonattentional views, for example , proposals that WMC and complex span performance reflect primarily domain-specific skills, such as reading, math, or spatial ability (e.g., MacDonald & Christiansen, 2002), or particular strategic behaviors (e.g., McNamara & Scott, 2001).”
RNNs as psycholinguistic subjects: Syntactic state and grammatical dependency (2018, background): “While we are not interested in directly modeling human processing difficulty here, we note that there is a long tradition linking RNN performance to human language processing (Elman, 1990; Christiansen and Chater, 1999; MacDonald and Christiansen, 2002; Frank and Bod, 2011).”
Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension (2005, background): “…C. MacDonald and Christiansen , who suggest that the distinction that Just and Carpenter draw between their reading span task and language-processing tasks is artificial and that both tasks are " simply different measures of language processing skill " (M. C. MacDonald & Christiansen, 2002, p. 36).”
Consequences of the Now-or-Never bottleneck for signed versus spoken languages (2015, background): “For example, item-based (Tomasello 2003), connectionist (e.g., Chang et al. 1999; Elman 1990; MacDonald & Christiansen 2002),15 exemplarbased (e.g., Bod 2009), and other usage-based (e.g., Arnon & Snider 2010; Bybee 2006) accounts of language acquisition tie learning and processing together – and…”
The concurrent validity of the N-back task as a working memory measure (2010, background): “This feature could have obscured the relationship with the RST, since this measure is sometimes specifically related to language-related abilities (MacDonald & Christiansen, 2002 ) (however, see Kane et al, 2004 ).”
Rapid Expectation Adaptation during Syntactic Comprehension (2013, background): “MacDonald and Christiansen (2002) [46] trained the networks on a corpus of sentences from a context-free grammar whose statistical properties closely resembled corpora of English.”
Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. (2004, background): “…of working memory treat storage and attention elements as properties of one system (e.g., Anderson, 1983, 1993; Anderson , Reder, & Lebiere, 1996; MacDonald & Christiansen, 2002; Schneider & Detweiller, 1987) and view the central executive as managing the activation within long-term memory…”