Time and cognitive load in working memory.

By Pierre Barrouillet, Sophie Bernardin, Sophie Portrat, Evie Vergauwe, Valérie Camos. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition, 2007

596 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bc1a09c765e96f460401d7f5b3f02d538044a95b

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 Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Working Memory and Academic Learning: Assessment and Intervention (2008, background): “From this perspective, attention-demanding processes reduce the proportion of time that can be allocated to storage (Barrouillet et al., 2007).”
Two maintenance mechanisms of verbal information in working memory (2009, methodology): “Barrouillet et al. (2007) established that a SRT task such as pressing a key each time a stimulus appears on screen involves a negligible cognitive load that has no impact on concurrent maintenance, whereas selecting the appropriate response in a CRT task involves a cognitive load and has a…”
Review of Academic Mathematics Instruction for Students with Mild Intellectual Disability (2012, unknown): “…give these students an important tool for overcoming deﬁcits in working memory which may have previously contributed to the struggles of some students with MID in mathematics (Allen et al., 2006; Bad-deley, 2003; Barrouillet, Bernardin, Portrat, Vergauwe, & Camos, 2007; Schuchardt et al., 2010).”
Working memory updating involves item-specific removal (2014, background): “Traditionally, a temporal decay mechanism has been proposed to serve this ‘housekeeping’ function (Baddeley, 2000; Barrouillet et al., 2007).”
What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? (2008, background): “Bjork and Whitten (1974) and Tzeng (1973) made temporal distinctiveness arguments on the basis of what is called continual distractor list recall, in which a recency effect persists even when the list is followed by a distracter-filled delay before recall. The filled delay should have destroyed shor”
Goal Priming and the Affective-Motivational Route to Nonconscious Goal Pursuit (2008, methodology): “Debriefing After the size estimation task participants were debriefed and probed for awareness of the puzzle words presented in the goal shaping task by using a similar procedure to that suggested by Bargh and Chartrand (2000). Specifically, they were asked whether they had seen words flashed on the”