Attention control theories suggest that domain general attention control abilities are needed to actively maintain task relevant information in the presence of potent internal and KRX-0401 order external distraction. Thus, attention control (similar to inhibitory control) is needed to maintain information in an active state and

to block and inhibit irrelevant representations from gaining access to WM. According to attention control views of WM, high WM individuals have greater attention control and inhibitory capabilities than low WM individuals, and thus are better at actively maintaining information in the presence of distraction. Evidence consistent with this view comes from a number of studies which have found strong correlations between various attention control measures and WM and both the task and latent levels (Engle and Kane, 2004, McVay and Kane, 2012 and Unsworth and Spillers, 2010a). In terms of predicting gF, attention control views have specifically suggested that the reason that WM and gF are so highly related is because of individual differences in attention control. Recent research has demonstrated that attention control is strongly

related with gF, and partially mediates the relation between WM and gF (Unsworth and Spillers, 2010a and Unsworth et al., 2009). However, in these prior studies WM still predicted gF even after accounting for attention control, suggesting Selleckchem p38 MAPK inhibitor that attention control is not the sole reason for the relation between WM and gF. In contrast to attention control views, recent work has suggested that individual differences in WM are primarily due to capacity limits in the number of things that participants can maintain in WM (Cowan et al., 2005 and Unsworth et al., 2010). Theoretically, the number below of items that can be maintained

is limited to roughly four items but there are large individual differences in this capacity (Awh et al., 2007, Cowan, 2001, Cowan et al., 2005, Luck and Vogel, 1997 and Vogel and Awh, 2008). Thus, individuals with large capacities can simultaneously maintain more information in WM than individuals with smaller capacities. In terms of gF, this means that high capacity individuals can simultaneously attend to multiple goals, sub-goals, hypotheses, and partial solutions for problems which they are working on allowing them to better solve the problem than low capacity individuals who cannot maintain/store as much information. Evidence consistent with this hypothesis comes from a variety of studies which have shown that capacity measures of WM are correlated with complex span measures of WM and with gF (Cowan et al., 2006, Cowan et al., 2005, Fukuda et al., 2010 and Shipstead et al., 2012). However, like the results from examining attention control theories, recent research has found that WM still predicted gF even after accounting for the number of items that individuals can maintain (Shipstead et al., 2012).