The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance.

Abstract

Individuals with high math anxiety demonstrated smaller working memory spans, especially when assessed with a computation-based span task. This reduced working memory capacity led to a pronounced increase in reaction time and errors when mental addition was performed concurrently with a memory load task. The effects of the reduction also generalized to a working memory-intensive transformation task. Overall, the results demonstrated that an individual difference variable, math anxiety, affects on-line performance in math-related tasks and that this effect is a transitory disruption of working memory. The authors consider a possible mechanism underlying this effect--disruption of central executive processes--and suggest that individual difference variables like math anxiety deserve greater empirical attention, especially on assessments of working memory capacity and functioning.

Tuning down the emotional brain: An fMRI study of the effects of cognitive load on the processing of affective images

“…In an experimental study, participants were exposed to neutral or negative emotional pictures, after which they performed an arithmetic task that made varying demands on processing resources (Ashcraft and Kirk, 2001), and rated their emotional state (Fig. 1).…”

On the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive aptitudes

“…There is now a considerable variety of studies in which relationships between different types of WM procedures and intellectual aptitudes, and their development, have been assessed (e.g., Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001;Booth, MacWhinney, & Harasaki, 2000;Caplan & Waters, 1999;Conway et al, 2002;Cowan et al, 2003;Daneman & Hannon, 2001;Daneman & Merikle, 1996;Engle et al, 1999;Fry & Hale, 1996;Gathercole & Pickering, 2000;Haarman, Davelaar, & Usher, 2003;Hedden & Park, 2003;Hitch et al, 2001;Hutton & Towse, 2001;Kyllonen & Christal, 1990;Lustig et al, 2001;Miyake, Friedman, Rettinger, Shah, & Hegarty, 2001;Oberauer et al, 2002;Salthouse, 1996;Swanson, 1996). Yet, there is not much agreement in the field as to the definition of WM, the best measures to examine it, or why these measures work (e.g., see the differences of opinion within the chapters of Miyake & Shah, 1999).…”

“…There have been a number of studies applying the logic of storage-and-processing types of tasks and other complex WM tasks in childhood development (e.g., Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001;Bayliss, Jarrold, Gunn, & Baddeley, 2003;Case et al, 1982;Daneman & Hannon, 2001;Gathercole & Pickering, 2000;Hitch, Towse, & Hutton, 2001;Kail & Hall, 2001;Swanson, 1996;Towse Hitch, & Hutton, 1998). The importance of such study is partly that it can help in predicting and clarifying childhood aptitudes and disabilities (e.g., Swanson, in press), and partly that it can help in clarifying the processes of WM per se.…”

On the validity and generality of transfer effects in cognitive training research

“…If this pattern is not theoretically plausible, that is, if the observed pattern contradicts the expected commonality between various transfer tasks, broad effects of transfer may even threaten rather than support the theoretical concept underlying the training intervention (Campell & Fiske, 1959). Changes at the level of non-cognitive, state-like, factors such as test motivation (e.g., Revelle, 1993) or test anxiety (Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001;Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007;Hopko, Crittendon, Grant, & Wilson, 2005), may offer more parsimonious explanations than changes at the level of general cognitive ability. The potentially broad effect of non-cognitive factors (e.g., Shipstead et al, 2010) is of major concern for latent analyses of training-related gains because latent constructs represent the common variance among multiple variables.…”