Social communication impairs working-memory performance

Applied Neuropsychology

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 211-214

  Nemeth, Dezso ^a   Turcsik, Adam Balint ^b   Farkas, Gabriella ^b   Janacsek, Karolina ^a  

^a EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SZEGED   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Live speech and recorded voice; Natural pedagogy; Neuropsychological testing; Ostensive communication; Social influences; Third party observer; Working memory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880160981     PISSN: 09084282     EISSN: 15324826     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09084282.2012.685134     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Case, R., Kurland, D. M., & Goldberg, J. (1982). Operational efficiency and the growth of short-term memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33(3), 386-404.
2. Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 148-153.
3. Daneman, M., & Blennerhassett, A. (1984). How to assess the listening comprehension skills of prereaders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1372-1381.
4. Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2008). Implicit and explicit processes in social cognition. Neuron, 60(3), 503-510.
5. Gavett, B. E., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2007). The influence of an adaptation period in reducing the third party observer effect during a neuropsychological evaluation. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22(6), 699-710.
6. Goldfarb, L. P., Plante, T. G., Brentar, J. T., & DliGregorio, M. (1995). Administering the Digit Span subtest of the WISC-III: Should the examiner make eye contact or not? Assessment, 2(4), 313-318.
7. Janacsek, K., Tánczos, T., Mészáros, T., & Nemeth, D. (2009). The Hungarian version of the Listening Span task. Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle [Hungarian Review of Psychology], 64(2), 385-406.
8. Kane,M. J.,Hambrick,D.Z.,Tuholski, S.W.,Wilhelm,O.,Payne,T.W., & Engle, R.W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 189-217.
9. Plante, L. G., Plante, T. G., Rahm, P., Brentar, J. T., & Couchman, C. (1997). Administering the Digit Span subtest of the WISC-III to children with attentional, emotional, and learning difficulties: Should the examiner make eye contact or not? Assessment, 4(4), 351-357.
10. Rahman, S. (2007). Celebrating a decade of TiCS. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(4), 137-139.
11. Topál, J., Gergely, G., Erdohegyi, A., Csibra, G., & Miklósi, Á. (2009). Differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants. Science, 325(5945), 1269-1272.
12. Yantz, C. J., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2007). Social facilitation effect of examiner attention or inattention to computer-administered neuropsychological tests: First sign that the examiner may affect results. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21(4), 663-671.
13. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269-274.