Compensating for a limited working memory capacity during reading: Evidence from eye movements

Reading Psychology

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 163-186

  Burton, Christine ^a   Daneman, Meredyth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248363188     PISSN: 02702711     EISSN: 15210685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02702710601186407     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1-12.
2. Anderson, R. C., Pichert, J. W., & Shirey, L. L. (1983). Effects of the reader's schema at different points in time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 271-279.
3. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829-839.
5. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). New York: Academic Press.
6. Baddeley, A. D., Logic, R., Nimmo-Smith, I., & Brereton, N. (1985). Components of fluent reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 119-131.
7. Baillet, S. D., & Keenan, J. M. (1986). The role of encoding and retrieval processes in the recall of text. Discourse Processes, 9, 247-268.
8. Bell, L. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1994). Reading skill: Some adult comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 244-255.
9. Borland, R., & Flammer, A. (1985). Encoding and retrieval processes in memory for prose. Discourse Processes, 8, 305-317.
10. Britton, B. K., Stimson, M., Stennett, B., & Gülgöz, S. (1998). Learning from instructional text: Test of an individual-differences model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 476-491.
11. Carr, T. H. (1981). Building theories of reading ability: On the relation between individual differences in cognitive skills and reading comprehension. Cognition, 9, 73-114.
12. Daneman, M. (1991). Individual differences in reading skill. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, &: P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 512-538). New York: Longman.
13. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
14. Daneman, M., & Hannon, B. (2001). Using working memory theory to investigate the construct validity of multiple-choice reading comprehension tests such as the SAT. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 30, 208-223.
15. Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422-433.
16. Dixon, P., LeFèvre, J., & Twilley, L. C. (1988). Word knowledge and working memory as predictors of reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 465-472.
17. Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Why does rereading improve metacomprehension accuracy? Evaluating the levels-of-disruption hypothesis for the rereading effect. Discourse Processes, 40, 37-55.
18. Gagné, E. D., Yarbrough, D. B., Weidemann, C., & Bell, M. S. (1984). The effects of text familiarity and cohesion on retrieval of information learned from text. Journal of Experimental Education, 52, 207-213.
19. Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 702-718.
20. Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 15, 84-93.
21. Glenberg, A. M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W., & Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 119-136.
22. Goetz, E. T., Schauert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Radin, D. I. (1983). Reading in perspective: What real cops and pretend burglars look for in a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 500-510.
23. Grabe, M. (1979). Reader imposed structure and prose retention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 162-171.
24. Grabe, M. (1981). Variable inspection time as an indicator of cognitive reading behaviors. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 334-343.
25. Haenggi, D., & Perfetti, C. A. (1994). Processing components of college-level reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17, 83-104.
26. Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2002). Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity and age on cognitive performance: An investigation of the knowledge-is-power hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 339-387.
27. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 103-128.
28. Jackson, M. D., & McClelland, J. L. (1979). Processing determinants of reading speed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 151-181.
29. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2002). Perspective effects on online text processing. Discourse Processes, 33, 159-173.
30. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2003). How prior knowledge, WMC, and relevance of information affect eye fixations in expositoiy text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 447-457.
31. Kardash, C. A. M., & Howell, K. L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs of undergraduates' cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 524-535.
32. Kardash, C. A. M., Royer, J. M., & Greene, B. A. (1988). Effects of schemata on both encoding and retrieval of information from prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 324-329.
33. Kintsch, W., &van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
34. Lefèvre, N., & Lories, G. (2004). Text cohesion and metacomprehension: Immediate and delayed judgments. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1238-1254.
35. Marr, M. B., & Gormley, K. (1982). Children's recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 89-104.
36. McDaniel, M. A., & Kerwin, M. L. (1987). Long-term prose retention: Is an organizational schema sufficient? Discourse Processes, 10, 237-252.
37. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 78-93.
38. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
39. Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
40. Moore, D., Zabrucky, K., & Commander, N. E. (1997). Metacomprehension and comprehension performance in younger and older adults. Educational Gerontology, 23, 467-475.
41. Palmer, J., MacLeod, C. M., Hunt, E., & Davidson, J. E. (1985). Information processing correlates of reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 59-88.
42. Perfetti, C. A., & Goldman, S. R. (1976). Discourse memory and reading comprehension skill. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 33-42.
43. Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309-315.
44. Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Meta-comprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1004-1010.
45. Rawson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (2002). How does background information improve memory for text content? Memory & Cognition, 30, 768-778.
46. Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers' memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 16-20.
47. Reynolds, R. E. (1992). Selective attention and prose learning: Theoretical and empirical research. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 345-391.
48. Rukavina, I., & Daneman, M. (1996). Integration and its effect on acquiring knowledge about competing scientific theories for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 272-287.
49. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.
50. Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 435-443.
51. Shen, J., Reingold, E. M., & Pomplun, M. (2003). Guidance of eye movements during conjunctive visual search: The distractor-ratio effect. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 76-96.
52. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66-73.
53. Turner, M. L., &: Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127-154.
54. Walczyk, J. J. (1993). Are general resource notions still viable in reading research? Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 127-135.
55. Walczyk, J. J. (1995). Testing a compensatory-encoding model. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 396-408.
56. Walczyk, J. J., & Taylor, R. W. (1996). How do the efficiencies of reading subcomponents relate to looking back in text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 537-545.
57. Weaver, C. A., III. (1990). Constraining factors in calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 214-222.