@ARTICLE{Bunting2004,
  author = {Michael F. Bunting and Andrew R.A. Conway and Richard P. Heitz},
  title = {Individual differences in the fan effect and working memory capacity},
  journal = {J Mem Lang},
  year = {2004},
  volume = {51},
  pages = {604 - 622},
  number = {4},
  abstract = {In opposition to conceptualizing working memory (WM) in terms of a
	general capacity, we present four experiments that favor the view
	that individual differences in WM depend on attentional control.
	High- and low-WM participants, as assessed by the operation span
	task, learned unrelated sentences for which the subject and predicate
	of the sentences shared concepts (fan). Sentences were learned in
	sets organized by subjects (Experiments 1A and 1B) or predicates
	(Experiments 2A and 2B). WM predicted accuracy and reaction times
	on a subsequent speeded verification task, but not learning. In Experiments
	1A and 2A, low-WM participants had a steeper, positively sloped fan
	effect for reaction times to studied items than high-WM participants.
	In Experiments 1B and 2B, fan was eliminated across but not within
	memory sets, which eliminated individual differences but not slope
	to the fan effect. These effects suggest the crux of WM is attentional
	control, and competition across sets causes individual differences.},
  doi = {DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.007},
}

{"_id":"KmEdQ9YM9L88LBiAp","bibbaseid":"bunting-conway-heitz-individualdifferencesinthefaneffectandworkingmemorycapacity-2004","author_short":["Bunting, M. F.","Conway, A. R.","Heitz, R. P."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"firstnames":["Michael","F."],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Bunting"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Andrew","R.A."],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Conway"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Richard","P."],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Heitz"],"suffixes":[]}],"title":"Individual differences in the fan effect and working memory capacity","journal":"J Mem Lang","year":"2004","volume":"51","pages":"604 - 622","number":"4","abstract":"In opposition to conceptualizing working memory (WM) in terms of a general capacity, we present four experiments that favor the view that individual differences in WM depend on attentional control. High- and low-WM participants, as assessed by the operation span task, learned unrelated sentences for which the subject and predicate of the sentences shared concepts (fan). Sentences were learned in sets organized by subjects (Experiments 1A and 1B) or predicates (Experiments 2A and 2B). WM predicted accuracy and reaction times on a subsequent speeded verification task, but not learning. In Experiments 1A and 2A, low-WM participants had a steeper, positively sloped fan effect for reaction times to studied items than high-WM participants. In Experiments 1B and 2B, fan was eliminated across but not within memory sets, which eliminated individual differences but not slope to the fan effect. These effects suggest the crux of WM is attentional control, and competition across sets causes individual differences.","doi":"DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.007","bibtex":"@ARTICLE{Bunting2004,\n author = {Michael F. Bunting and Andrew R.A. Conway and Richard P. Heitz},\n title = {Individual differences in the fan effect and working memory capacity},\n journal = {J Mem Lang},\n year = {2004},\n volume = {51},\n pages = {604 - 622},\n number = {4},\n abstract = {In opposition to conceptualizing working memory (WM) in terms of a\n\tgeneral capacity, we present four experiments that favor the view\n\tthat individual differences in WM depend on attentional control.\n\tHigh- and low-WM participants, as assessed by the operation span\n\ttask, learned unrelated sentences for which the subject and predicate\n\tof the sentences shared concepts (fan). Sentences were learned in\n\tsets organized by subjects (Experiments 1A and 1B) or predicates\n\t(Experiments 2A and 2B). WM predicted accuracy and reaction times\n\ton a subsequent speeded verification task, but not learning. In Experiments\n\t1A and 2A, low-WM participants had a steeper, positively sloped fan\n\teffect for reaction times to studied items than high-WM participants.\n\tIn Experiments 1B and 2B, fan was eliminated across but not within\n\tmemory sets, which eliminated individual differences but not slope\n\tto the fan effect. These effects suggest the crux of WM is attentional\n\tcontrol, and competition across sets causes individual differences.},\n doi = {DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.007},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Bunting, M. F.","Conway, A. R.","Heitz, R. P."],"key":"Bunting2004","id":"Bunting2004","bibbaseid":"bunting-conway-heitz-individualdifferencesinthefaneffectandworkingmemorycapacity-2004","role":"author","urls":{},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://endress.org/publications/ansgar.bib","dataSources":["xPGxHAeh3vZpx4yyE","TXa55dQbNoWnaGmMq"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["individual","differences","fan","effect","working","memory","capacity","bunting","conway","heitz"],"title":"Individual differences in the fan effect and working memory capacity","year":2004}