Paper 01 - Gifted

Acta Psychologica 218 (2021) 103358
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Acta Psychologica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actpsy
Explaining the high working memory capacity of gifted children:

Contributions of processing skills and executive control
Alexandre Aubry a, *, Corentin Gonthier b, Béatrice Bourdin c
a
Université de Lorraine, 2LPN EA 7489, F-54000 Nancy, France
b
Université Rennes 2, LP3C EA 1285, Rennes, France
c
Université de Picardie Jules Verne, CRP-CPO EA 7273, Amiens, France
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Intellectually gifted children tend to demonstrate especially high working memory capacity, an ability that holds
Working memory capacity a critical role in intellectual functioning. What could explain the differences in working memory performance
Gifted children between intellectually gifted and nongifted children? We investigated this issue by measuring working memory
Attention Network Test
capacity with complex spans in a sample of 55 gifted and 55 nongifted children. Based on prior studies, we
Executive attention
Processing time
expected the higher working memory capacity of intellectually gifted children to be driven by more effective
executive control, as measured using the Attention Network Test. The findings confirmed that intellectually
gifted children had higher working memory capacity than typical children, as well as more effective executive
attention. Surprisingly, however, working memory differences between groups were not mediated by differences
in executive attention. Instead, it appears that gifted children resolve problems faster in the processing phase of
the working memory task, which leaves them more time to refresh to-be-remembered items. This faster problem
solving speed mediated their advantage in working memory capacity. Importantly, this effect was specific to
speed on complex problems: low-level processing speed, as measured with the Attention Network Test, did not
contribute to the higher working memory capacity of gifted children.
1. Introduction memory capacity is thought to facilitate complex cognitive processing

by allowing for the integration of more complex information (Oberauer
Intellectual giftedness is determined by a high level of general in et al., 2003). Working memory appears to play an important role in
telligence (Thompson & Oehlert, 2010). Intellectually gifted children learning and education in children (see Cowan, 2014 for a discussion),
are usually identified by a standardized intelligence test: in this and is an important predictor of academic achievement (Alloway &
conception, intellectual giftedness is operationalized as a high IQ Alloway, 2010; Gathercole et al., 2004; Krumm et al., 2008). Working
(McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012; Warne, 2015; Worrell et al., 2019). High memory spans increase throughout childhood until adolescence, along
intelligence is not the sole feature of giftedness, however, as it tends to with cognitive efficiency (Gathercole et al., 2004; Roberts et al., 2018;
be associated with higher performance in other cognitive abilities. In the Thaler et al., 2013).
literature, intellectually gifted children have repeatedly demonstrated The literature has often reported on the strong relationship between
higher working memory capacity than their peers (see Rodríguez- working memory capacity and the development of high-level cognitive
Naveiras et al., 2019 for a meta-analysis). The aim of the current study activities, such as mathematical processing (see Raghubar et al., 2010
was to investigate the cognitive processes that could explain their high for a review) and reading comprehension (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980;
working memory capacity, as a window both into mechanisms of gift Nouwens et al., 2016; Seigneuric & Ehrlich, 2005). Working memory
edness, and into mechanisms that can drive individual differences of capacity is also strongly related to fluid intelligence, in adults (Acker
performance in working memory tasks. man et al., 2005), and in children (Giofrè et al., 2013). Some early re
Working memory can be viewed as the workspace of cognition, searchers even argued for an isomophism between working memory
where we briefly store and manipulate information during cognitive capacity and intelligence (Blair, 2006; Kyllonen & Christal, 1990),
activity (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). Conceptually, a high working although this position is currently considered too extreme by the
* Corresponding author at: INSPÉ de Lorraine, Université de Lorraine, 2LPN EA 7489, 91 avenue de la libération, BP 32142, 54021 Nancy Cedex, France.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Aubry).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103358
Received 28 May 2020; Received in revised form 10 June 2021; Accepted 22 June 2021
Available online 30 June 2021
0001-6918/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Aubry et al. Acta Psychologica 218 (2021) 103358
majority of researchers (Oberauer et al., 2005). The current consensus is gifted children. One of these factors is the ability to quickly solve the
that working memory is the ability to store a limited amount of infor simple problems that make up concurrent processing requirements in
mation and use it in the execution of cognitive tasks (Cowan, 2014); in working memory tasks (Unsworth et al., 2009). Indeed, working mem
this sense, working memory can be viewed as one of the processes that ory capacity is often measured using complex span tasks (Conway et al.,
contribute to intelligence, defined as the variance shared by cognitive 2005; Redick et al., 2012; see Wilhelm et al., 2013 for a discussion of
tasks requiring problem solving (Schneider, 2013; for a discussion, see other paradigms), which require both storage of simple stimuli (such as
Kovacs & Conway, 2016). a letter or a digit) and concurrent processing (such as reading a sentence
In line with this idea, many studies have shown that intellectually or solving a simple operation). To succeed in such a task, it is not only
gifted children consistently demonstrate higher working memory ca necessary to memorize a series of to-be-remembered items as effectively
pacity than intellectually typical children (Calero et al., 2007; Hoard as possible; it is also necessary to perform the concurrent processing
et al., 2008; Leikin et al., 2013; van Viersen et al., 2014; see Rodríguez- tasks as quickly as possible so as to leave time for the refreshing of
Naveiras et al., 2019 for a meta-analysis). In others words, effective memory traces (Barrouillet et al., 2004). Due to this aspect of working
working memory seems characteristic of intellectual giftedness (Hoard memory tasks, a greater efficiency in simple problem solving could thus
et al., 2008; Kornmann et al., 2015; Rodríguez-Naveiras et al., 2019; increase working memory capacity. Problem solving speed is a good
Vock & Holling, 2008). However, the precise mechanism behind the candidate for the higher performance of gifted children. Indeed,
superior working memory capacity of gifted children is unknown. response time for solving simple problems consistently demonstrates a
negative relation with intelligence scores (Becker et al., 2016; Gold
1.1. Determinants of working memory capacity hammer & Entink, 2011); gifted children tend to solve simple problems
faster than nongifted children (Neubauer, 1990), and overall demon
What process(es) could lead gifted children to perform better in strate a greater capacity solving problems (Vogelaar et al., 2017;
working memory tests? While determinants of working memory ca Vogelaar et al., 2019).
pacity in the general population are relatively well-known, the corre Note that the ability to solve problems quickly is conceptually
lation between IQ and working memory capacity tends to decrease as distinct from processing speed (Nettelbeck et al., 1986; Neubauer,
intelligence increases (Alloway & Elsworth, 2012; Reynolds & Keith, 1990): the speed of information processing is usually defined as the
2007), suggesting that individual differences in working memory ca ability to perform very simple tasks, such as choice reaction time
pacity may behave differently in gifted children. Besides, gifted children (Sheppard & Vernon, 2008). Although some studies have also shown a
have a specific developmental trajectory, with specific cognitive and relationship between processing speed and intelligence (see Sheppard &
non-cognitive characteristics (Morelock & Morrison, 1999; Steiner & Vernon, 2008 for a review), the concept of processing speed is not clear
Carr, 2003; Vaivre-Douret, 2011), leading to several possible causes for and unitary (Danthiir et al., 2005) and tends to refer to tasks of a lower
their higher working memory capacity. Indeed, intellectually gifted level than the problem-solving required by concurrent processing in
children have advanced performance in language and memory given complex span tasks. However, an advantage for this low level processing
their chronological age (Kerr & Multon, 2015; Porath, 2006; Vaivre- speed could also conceivably contribute to the higher working memory
Douret, 2011). Some authors have also argued that intellectually gifted capacity of gifted children (see Fry & Hale, 2000).
children have specific patterns of brain development (Ma et al., 2017;
Mrazik & Dombrowski, 2010; Solé-Casals et al., 2019). 1.2. Rationale for the present study
In contrast with short-term memory, working memory involves both
storage and control mechanisms. This has led some authors to consider Prior studies have shown that working memory capacity is very high
that working memory performance results from the combination of in intellectually gifted individuals (see Rodríguez-Naveiras et al., 2019
short-form memory and executive control components (Baddeley, 2000; for a meta-analysis), but no studies have explored the cognitive pro
Barrouillet et al., 2004; Engle et al., 1999; Logie, 2011; see Cowan, 2017 cesses that can explain this high working memory capacity. The over
for a review). Indeed, executive control is essential to inhibit irrelevant arching goal of the current study was to investigate in detail the
information and switch attention between to-be-remembered items and performance of intellectually gifted children in complex span tasks and
concurrent processing (Kane & Engle, 2003). Although the executive to explore the possible sources of their high working memory spans.
control system encompasses several functions such as inhibition, Given that executive control is often regarded as the main determinant
updating or set shifting (Friedman & Miyake, 2017), models of working of working memory capacity (McCabe et al., 2010) and seems to be more
memory capacity usually focus on inhibition of interference as a key effective in gifted children (Duan et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2011a, 2011b),
contributor to working memory (see Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, our primary hypothesis was that executive control would drive the
2003). working memory capacity of these children. Because gifted children
Executive control has long been considered one of the main de demonstrate higher capacity for solving problems (Vogelaar et al., 2017;
terminants of working memory capacity, and a major contributor to its Vogelaar et al., 2019), we also examined the effect of speed in solving
relationship with high-level cognition (McCabe et al., 2010; Unsworth & the simple problems involved in complex span tasks on the working
Spillers, 2010), although storage in short-term memory is also an memory capacity of these children, also controlling for simple process
important part of working memory capacity which may contribute to its ing speed.1
predictive utility (Unsworth & Engle, 2007a, 2007b). Individual differ Another central aspect of the present study was the method for
ences in working memory capacity are consistently related to executive assessing working memory capacity. Although most working memory
control, both in young adults (e.g. Redick & Engle, 2006) and in typi tasks are verbal or visuo-spatial in nature, working memory actually
cally developing children (Cowan et al., 2005). In parallel, intellectually constitutes a domain-general construct (Kane et al., 2004). As a conse
gifted children seem to outperform typical children in tasks involving quence, the recommended way to measure working memory capacity is
executive control (Arffa, 2007; Duan et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2011a, to combine multiple working memory tasks so as to obtain a single score
2011b). These findings suggest that efficient executive control could limiting the influence of task-specific factors (Foster et al., 2014;
explain their high working memory capacity, although to our knowledge Gonthier et al., 2015). This approach was adopted in the present study.
no study has evaluated both executive control and working memory Another important point is that prior studies have measured working
capacity in gifted children. memory capacity in gifted children using an ascending procedure:
Although the importance of executive control for working memory is
well-established in the literature, other factors influence working
memory capacity and could contribute to the higher performance of 1
We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this analysis.
2
participants begin with moderately difficult trials, the number of to-be- mediated the relationship between working memory capacity and in
remembered items increases progressively, and the task is cut short telligence in young adults; in a similar fashion, our mediation analysis
when the participant fails a certain number of trials (Hoard et al., 2008; tested to what extent executive control and performance in the problem-
Kornmann et al., 2015; van Viersen et al., 2014). This ascending order of solving component of complex span tasks could be the source of the
difficulty poses several problems when assessing the abilities of extreme relationship between intellectual giftedness and working memory
groups such as intellectually gifted children. High-ability children must capacity.
succeed on in many easy trials before reaching an appropriate level of
difficulty. Thus, the ascending order of difficulty can cause fatigue and 2. Methods
frustration for high-ability children (e.g. Vandierendonck et al., 1998).
These issues can lead to underestimation of working memory perfor 2.1. Participants
mance in intellectually gifted children. In this type of task, participants
with high working memory capacity can fail at the easy trials out of A sample of 55 intellectually gifted children (mean
boredom (see Gonthier et al., 2017 for a detailed discussion of these age = 11.80 years, SD = 1.36, 22 females) and 55 nongifted children
issues). Ceiling effects are also a recurring issue in the context of intel (mean age = 11.89 years, SD = 1.24, 22 females) participated in the
lectual giftedness (McCoach et al., 2013; Vock & Holling, 2008). To study. The groups did not significantly differ in terms of age, t
obtain an appropriate measure of working memory capacity, suitable for (108) = − 0.18, p = .855, d = − 0.03. No children had known
both typical and gifted children, we developed an adaptive, multimodal learning disorders; all had normal or corrected vision, and all were
complex span task (Gonthier et al., 2017), which was used in the present native French speakers. Participants were recruited in elementary and
study. middle schools. The experiment was performed in compliance with local
Prior studies of executive control in gifted children have used ethics regulations. Signed informed consent was provided by all legal
specialized experimental paradigms in the context of electrophysiolog guardians in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Before testing
ical studies (Duan et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2011a, 2011b). By contrast, we took place, the objectives of the study were explained to the children,
elected to base the present study on the widespread tripartite model of who then gave oral agreement for their participation. Sample size was
attentional functioning and the corresponding experimental paradigm. determined by the number of available subjects: all gifted children who
Executive control can be viewed as an attentional network coexisting could be reached and who agreed to participate were included in the
with two other independent attentional networks (Petersen & Posner, study.
2012): alerting, defined as achieving an alert state, and orienting, All gifted children were identified prior to inclusion in the study by a
defined as the orientation of attention towards sensory input (Fan et al., clinical psychologist using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
2002). The Attention Network Test (ANT) was elaborated to assess each IV (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2005). The inclusion criterion for children in the
attentional network separately (Fan et al., 2002). This task requires the gifted group was IQ strictly above 125, corresponding to the 95th
activation of all three attentional networks to respond to simple stimuli percentile. For most of the gifted sample (n = 45), a copy of these
while ignoring distractors; it does not require high-level reasoning WISC-IV scores was available to verify the IQ > 125 criterion; for the
processes, which makes it well-suited to the comparison of gifted and remainder (n = 10), WISC-IV scores could not be retrieved, and the IQ
typical children. Note that the ANT measures the effectiveness of the criterion was additionally verified using Raven’s Standard Progressive
executive control network through a particular aspect of executive Matrices (Raven et al., 1998). The inclusion criterion for children in the
control, that of resolution of interference (inhibition); this is particularly nongifted group was IQ comprised between 85 and 115. This criterion
suited to a study of working memory given that inhibition of interfer was verified using Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices for all chil
ence is an important component of executive control in the functioning dren. The distribution of estimated IQ scores was approximately normal
of working memory (Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003). in the gifted (mean IQ = 139.64, SD = 8.27, skewness = 0.08,
While flanker tasks in general (Heitz & Engle, 2007; Shipstead et al., kurtosis = − 0.57) and nongifted groups (M = 103.20, SD = 5.64,
2012; Unsworth & Spillers, 2010) and the ANT in particular (Redick & skewness = − 0.09, kurtosis = − 0.84). This identification strategy for
Engle, 2006; Tourva et al., 2016) have demonstrated a relationship gifted and nongifted children is in line with current recommendations
between executive control and working memory capacity in young (Assouline et al., 2009; Aubry & Bourdin, 2018; McIntosh et al., 2012);
adults, the ANT has never been used in intellectually gifted children to note that the use of different intelligence tests for the two groups is not
estimate the efficiency of their attentional networks. Given that gifted an issue because intelligence scores were never used as a variable in the
children seem to specifically demonstrate better executive control present study.
(Arffa, 2007; Duan et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2011a, 2011b), and given that
IQ in typical children correlates with executive control network in the 2.2. Measures
ANT (Konrad et al., 2005), we expected the two groups to specifically
differ in terms of executive control performance, not alerting and ori All the measures and conditions collected in this study are included
enting. We also expected executive control performance to contribute to in the present manuscript.
the difference between the two groups in terms of working memory
capacity, due to its primary role in models of working memory (McCabe 2.2.1. Working memory
et al., 2010; Unsworth & Spillers, 2010). Domain-general working memory capacity was measured with a
In order to test our hypotheses, we used an analysis of mediation to battery of three computerized complex span tasks, the Adaptative
identify the variables that could explain the relationship between gift Composite Complex Span (ACCES; Gonthier et al., 2017). This task has
edness and working memory capacity. Mediation allows to explore a demonstrated adequate psychometric qualities based on the classical
chain of relations between variables (see MacKinnon et al., 2007, for a test theory in a sample of 268 French-speaking children (Gonthier et al.,
detailed presentation): it tests whether an antecedent variable affects a 2017). This includes adequate test-retest reliability for the total score
mediating variable, which in turn affects an outcome variable. Thus, (r = 0.70) and concurrent validity with the RSPM (r = 0.34, close to
mediation analysis makes it possible to explore the processes by which the population value of r = 0.36; Ackerman et al., 2005). The ACCES is
intellectual giftedness affects working memory capacity. Mediation composed of the three most common complex span tasks: the reading
analysis does not directly test causal relationships (which requires an span, symmetry span, and operation span (Redick et al., 2012). All tasks
experimental design), but it identifies possible variables that can create follow the same structure: participants have to alternate between solv
a causal chain. For example, Unsworth et al. (2009) showed that ing simple problems, and memorizing unrelated stimuli presented after
response time and accuracy of processing in complex spans partially each problem. At the end of each trial, participants are asked to recall all
3
to-be-remembered stimuli in the same order. 2.2.2. Attentional abilities

In each trial, to-be-remembered stimuli were presented for 800 ms The Attention Network Test (ANT; Rueda et al., 2004) was used to
and followed by an 800 ms inter-stimulus interval. Processing problems estimate the efficiency of three independent attentional networks:
to be solved were presented until the participant provided an answer, or alerting, orienting and executive control. The present task was directly
until too much time had elapsed (see Unsworth et al., 2005). This based on the classic version of the paradigm (Fan et al., 2002). The
maximal allowed time was defined based on participant speed in 10 stimuli were fish pointing towards the left or right of the screen (as used
practice trials: the time limit to solve the problems in the experimental in the child version of the ANT). The stimuli of the task were retrieved
trials was the participant’s median time during practice plus 2.5 times from the author website at this address: https://www.sacklerinstitute.or
the median absolute deviation (with a minimum of 2000 ms and a g/cornell/assays_and_tools/ant/jin.fan/. Children were required to
maximum of 8000 ms). This ensured that the pace of the concurrent indicate the direction of target fish by pressing the left or right arrow
problem-solving task was tailored to each child’s problem solving abil keys on a keyboard.
ity, presumably limiting the role of response speed (Barrouillet et al., The procedure of the ANT is illustrated in Fig. 1. Each trial repre
2009; Gaillard et al., 2011). A preliminary study also ensured that the sented one of 12 possible conditions in equal proportion: 4 types of cues
difficulty of processing problems was appropriate for children (Gonthier (no cue, central cue, double cue or valid spatial cue) × 3 types of
et al., 2017). targets (congruent, incongruent or neutral). Each trial began with a
The reading span task required participants to decide whether sen fixation cross displayed for a random duration (between 400 and
tences are semantically plausible (e.g. “Les violons font des bulles”/ 1400 ms). One of the four possible cues then appeared for 100 ms. After
“Violins make bubbles”) and to memorize single digits; the symmetry the disappearance of this cue, only the fixation cross was visible for
span task required participants to decide whether geometric displays are 400 ms. Lastly, a target fish appeared, either alone (neutral condition)
symmetric and to memorize the location of red squares in a 4 × 4 grid; or among other fish pointing in the same (congruent condition) or the
lastly, the operation span task required participants to decide whether opposite (incongruent condition) direction. Children then had to press
simple equations are correct (e.g., 2 + 3 = 3) and to memorize con the button corresponding to the direction of the target fish within a
sonants chosen to be phonetically distinctive in French. For each com 1700 ms delay. The task began with a training phase of 24 trials,
plex span task, participants first trained to memorize stimuli, solve including feedback. Children then performed three experimental blocks
problems, and do both tasks at once. They then performed 6 target trials. of 96 trials without feedback, with a 5-second break between each block.
The number of stimuli to remember varied adaptively as a function of For each participant, average error rate (ER) and median response
participant performance on the previous trial (see Gonthier et al., 2017 times (RT) were recorded for each condition. Response times were
for details), with set size ranging from 2 to 8 stimuli to remember in a considered only for correct trials; RTs faster than 200 ms or slower than
trial. 1700 ms were considered as anticipation and omission errors and
Participants performed the reading span, symmetry span and oper excluded from the computation (approximately 0.56% of trials).
ation span, in this order. Working memory span scores were determined Each attentional network score was determined by the subtraction
for each complex span as the total number of stimuli correctly recalled in method for each condition (Fan et al., 2002; Rueda et al., 2004): (1)
the correct position (Conway et al., 2005). Scores on the three complex alerting was estimated by subtracting the no cue condition from the
span tasks were standardized and then averaged to produce a single, double condition; (2) orienting was estimated by subtracting the central
composite working memory capacity score. Accuracy and median cue condition from the valid cue condition; (3) executive control was
response times on correctly answered processing problems in the three estimated by subtracting the incongruent condition from the congruent
complex span tasks were also retrieved for each participant. To ensure condition. These three scores were computed separately for RTs and ER.
that participants performed both components of the complex spans Average error rates over all trials were also retrieved, as well as median
correctly, the data from a subtest were excluded if processing accuracy response times over all trials, which served to index low-level processing
scores were in the bottom fifth percentile of the sample, and working speed.
memory capacity was computed from the other two subtests (Gonthier Reliability was computed for each attentional network score using
et al., 2015; Unsworth et al., 2005). This occurred for 18 participants (3 the permutation method (see MacLeod et al., 2010 for a detailed
gifted and 15 nongifted children). No participant failed to meet this description). Each participant’s data was randomly split 1000 times, and
processing accuracy threshold on two subtests or more. split-half reliability was computed for each of these permutations, then
corrected with the Spearman-Brown formula. The reliability of each
attentional network score referred to the average of these 1000 split-half
Fig. 1. Procedure for the Attention Network Test.
4
estimates. For RT, executive control was the most reliable network (rsplit- interval does not include zero. Indirect effects were estimated based on
half = 0.52), followed by alerting (rsplit-half = 0.36) and orienting (rsplit- all available data (i.e. using the full sample for all putative mediators).
half = 0.33). For ER, the executive control also had substantially higher
reliability (rsplit-half = 0.67) than the alerting and orienting scores 3. Results
(respectively, rsplit-half = 0.08; rsplit-half = − 0.23). Although these
reliability coefficients are low, they are very close to the results of prior We performed outlier analyses using Cook’s distance (Cook, 1977);
literature using the ANT, which generally demonstrates limited reli no participant was removed as a result. All subjects who participated in
ability (see MacLeod et al., 2010). the study were included in the analyses. Descriptive statistics for all
measures as a function of group are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The
2.3. Procedure recall performance measures in the three complex span tasks had a
distribution close to normal, with no indication of ceiling effects in
Participants performed the experiment collectively in two testing gifted children. Variances were comparable across groups for all
sessions. The sessions were separated by no more than one week. During measures.
the first session, children performed the ACCES and ANT tasks. The
ACCES took on average 35 min and the ANT approximately 20 min.
3.1. Comparison between gifted and nongifted children
During the second session, all children performed the RSPM within a
limited time of 30 min.
3.1.1. Working memory capacity
Composite working memory scores for all children in the two groups
2.4. Data analysis are displayed in Fig. 2. A one-way ANOVA on composite working
memory capacity scores with group (gifted vs. nongifted) as a factor
The data and R scripts needed to replicate the statistical analyses are indicated that intellectually gifted children had significantly higher
available on the Open Science Framework platform at https://osf.io/kh working memory capacity than nongifted children, F(1, 108) = 29.82,
nb8. A first series of analyses examined whether the gifted and nongifted MSE = 0.479, p < .001, η2 = 0.22. A repeated measures ANOVA with
groups differed in terms of overall working memory capacity, processing groups (gifted vs. nongifted) as between-subjects factor and type of task
times and processing accuracy on the working memory task, and in (Reading span, Symmetry span and Operation span) as within-subjects
terms of scores for the three attentional networks. These analyses were factor confirmed that intellectually gifted children had significantly
performed based on the general linear model, using between-subject higher working memory capacity overall than nongifted children, F(1,
ANOVAs and mixed-design ANOVAs (with Greenhouse-Geisser correc 90) = 21.86, MSE = 1.42, p < .001, η2G = 0.12, with no significant
tion when appropriate). Post hoc tests were performed using Tukey’s difference between the three working memory subtests, F(1.96,
HSD. Effect sizes were performed using eta squared (η2) for one-way 176.57) = 0.52, MSE = 0.61, p = .594, η2G = 0.003.
ANOVA and generalized eta squared (η2G) for mixed-design ANOVA as The correlation between composite working memory capacity scores
recommended by Bakeman (2005). and estimated IQ, computed across the whole sample, was r
A second series of analyses examined whether the difference in (106) = 0.462, p < .001, reflecting a shared variance of 21%. This
working memory capacity between the gifted and nongifted groups was correlation was higher than usually observed (e.g. Ackerman et al.,
mediated by the processing efficiency and attentional network scores. 2005), presumably due to the larger range of intelligence scores than
These analyses were based on bootstrap tests for multiple mediation usually recruited for studies on the relationship between WMC and in
(Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008). This method is preferred over the telligence. 83% of gifted children were above the average working
earlier procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) for mediation memory capacity of nongifted children (see Fig. 2).
analysis, because bootstrapping is a nonparametric approach that does
not depend on normality (Efron, 1988; Efron & Tibshirani, 1986); in the 3.1.2. Performance on processing problems
case of mediation analysis, this improves both statistical power and the A one-way ANOVA with group (gifted vs. nongifted) was performed
control of type I error rate (see Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008) and al for response times on the processing problems of the ACCES. The main
lows for the test of multiple mediators simultaneously. Applying the group effect was significant, indicating that gifted children were overall
Baron and Kenny (1986) steps for each mediator separately gave similar faster when solving problems in the complex span tasks, F(1,
results here. Indirect effects were estimated using the lavaan package 108) = 5.20, MSE = 0.63, p = .025, η2 = 0.05.
(Rosseel, 2012; bias-corrected method with 20,000 bootstrap samples). Likewise, a one-way ANOVA with group (gifted vs. nongifted) was
Bootstrapping provides 95% confidence intervals for direct and indirect performed for accuracy on the processing problems of the ACCES. The
effects; an effect is significant at the p < .05 level if the 95% confidence main group effect was significant, indicating that gifted children were
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for all measures collected in the working memory task as a function of group.
Type of measure Subtest Gifted Nongifted
n M SD Skew Kurtosis n M SD Skew Kurtosis
Recall scores Reading span 55 26.18 5.15 − 0.50 0.53 49 21.39 5.98 − 0.74 2.51
Symmetry span 55 19.64 4.42 − 0.05 − 0.64 49 17.20 4.06 0.14 − 0.64
Operation span 52 26.27 4.43 − 0.54 0.50 52 22.52 4.46 − 0.47 0.63
Composite score 55 0.34 0.67 − 0.42 0.18 55 − 0.38 0.71 − 0.21 − 0.78
Accuracy on concurrent processing tasks (in % correct) Reading span 55 0.95 0.04 − 0.74 − 0.10 49 0.94 0.04 − 0.22 − 0.57
Symmetry span 55 0.98 0.03 − 1.65 1.82 49 0.97 0.04 − 0.74 − 0.82
Operation span 52 0.98 0.03 − 1.33 1.29 52 0.96 0.03 − 0.35 − 0.90
Composite accuracy 55 0.15 0.51 − 0.12 − 0.82 55 − 0.16 0.71 − 0.37 0.34
Median response time on concurrent processing tasks (in Reading span 55 2.57 0.65 1.23 1.75 49 2.90 0.65 0.64 0.05
seconds) Symmetry span 55 2.03 0.52 0.60 − 0.62 49 2.13 0.47 0.49 − 0.34
Operation span 52 2.10 0.48 0.24 − 0.67 52 2.24 0.52 0.70 0.63
Composite response 55 − 0.15 0.82 0.77 0.53 55 0.19 0.77 0.45 0.16
time
5
Table 2
Descriptive statistics for all measures collected in the ANT as a function of group.
Attentional measure Gifted (n = 55) Nongifted (n = 55)
M SD Skew Kurtosis M SD Skew Kurtosis
Response time (RT, in ms) Median RT 639.66 97.06 0.91 1.36 638.12 77.65 0.14 − 0.31
Alerting 26.44 33.11 − 0.23 1.30 27.77 29.61 0.66 0.33
Orienting 47.34 28.79 − 0.38 1.25 40.15 34.94 0.16 0.00
Executive control 85.07 34.62 − 0.33 0.11 106.22 25.94 0.13 − 0.65
Error Rate (ER, in %) Average PE 2.97 2.13 1.19 1.47 4.51 2.25 0.36 − 0.75
Alerting 0.00 3.36 − 1.30 4.31 1.26 3.14 0.37 − 0.32
Orienting 0.73 2.66 0.32 − 0.48 1.39 2.89 0.01 − 0.58
Executive control 3.84 4.49 1.15 0.56 6.76 4.71 0.69 0.99
Fig. 2. Working memory scores for gifted and nongifted children.
more accurate when solving problems regardless of the complex span For RTs, there was no main effect of group, F(1, 108) = 1.71,
task, F(1, 108) = 6.83, MSE = 0.39, p = .010, η2 = 0.06. MSE = 1249.93, p = .193, η2G = 0.01, but group interacted with
attentional network, F(1.98, 213.65) = 6.85, MSE = 857.91,
3.1.3. Attentional abilities p < .001, η2G = 0.04. Post hoc tests using Tukey’s HSD showed that
gifted children were significantly faster for executive control, t
3.1.3.1. Overall attentional measures. One-way ANOVAs with groups (312) = 3.54, p < .001, d = 0.40, but the two groups did not differ in
(gifted vs. nongifted) as a between-subjects factor were performed on terms of alerting, t(312) = 0.22, p = .823, d = 0.03, or orienting, t
median response times and average error rate (on all trials of the ANT). (312) = 1.20, p = .230, d = 0.14. For ERs, there was a main effect of
There was no main effect of group on the overall response time, F(1, group, F(1, 108) = 14.99, MSE = 14.31, p < .001, η2G = 0.05 and a
108) = 0.01, MSE = 7724.90, p = .927, η2 = 0.00, but gifted marginal interaction between group and attentional network, F(1.79,
children made significantly fewer errors than nongifted children (see 193.39) = 2.99, MSE = 14.04, p = .058, η2G = 0.02. Post hoc tests
Table 2), F(1, 108) = 13.61, MSE = 4.79, p < .001, η2 = 0.11. using Tukey’s HSD suggested that gifted children made significantly
fewer errors for executive control, t(323) = 4.22, p < .001, d = 0.48,
3.1.3.2. Attentional network scores. We expected gifted children to and marginally less errors for alerting, t(323) = 1.83, p = .069,
demonstrate significantly better executive control performance, but not d = 0.21. There was no difference for orienting, t(323) = 0.95,
necessarily better alerting or orienting. This hypothesis was tested with p = .343, d = 0.11.
a repeated measure ANOVA with group (gifted vs. nongifted) as a
between-subjects factor and attentional network (Alerting, Orienting
3.2. Determinants of high working memory capacity in intellectually
and Executive control) as a within-subjects factor. This analysis was
gifted children
conducted for RT and ER, separately. These results are displayed in
Fig. 3.
In the previous series of analyses, we showed that gifted children not
6
A) Gifted B) Gifted
Nongifted Nongifted
Gifted Gifted
90 6
Response time (in ms)
Error rate (in %)

4
60
2
30
Alerting Orienting Executive Control Alerting Orienting Executive Control

Attentional Networks Attentional Networks
Fig. 3. Performance at each attentional network by group in: (A) response time and error rate (B).
only demonstrated higher working memory capacity; but they were also memory capacity of gifted children, the final series of analyses investi
more proficient in their solving of concurrent processing problems in gated all these potential mediators of group differences. The child’s
working memory tasks, and demonstrated better executive control, as group (intellectually gifted vs. nongifted) was treated as the predictor
suggested by the literature. Examining the pattern of bivariate correla variable and their composite working memory score as the outcome
tions in both groups (see Table 3) also showed that working memory variable. Performance on processing problems of the ACCES working
capacity was negatively correlated with response times in concurrent memory task (accuracy and RT, averaged across the three subtests),
processing tasks, and with median of RTs from all trials in ANT (see executive control (ER and RT), and the median RT of all trials on ANT
Table 3). All these variables were thus marked as possible mediators of were included as mediators.
the relation between giftedness and working memory capacity. As shown in Fig. 4, there was a significant relationship between in
In order to investigate the possible source of the higher working tellectual giftedness and working memory capacity (Fig. 4A). When
controlling for the potential mediators in a multiple regression, the
relationship between intellectual giftedness and working memory ca
Table 3 pacity decreased, but was still significant, suggesting partial mediation
Correlation between all variables in function of group.
(Fig. 4B). This was confirmed by a mediation analysis (Preacher &
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hayes, 2004, 2008): the indirect group effect on working memory ca
1. Working – − 0.05 − 0.45** − 0.16 − 0.03 − 0.44** pacity through the mediators was highly significant (total indirect
Memory effect = 0.720, standard error = 0.124, 95% CI [0.480, 0.967]),
Capacity: indicating that group-related differences in working memory capacity
ACCES
were indeed mediated by the selected measures. The direct group effect
2. Performance 0.21 – 0.01 0.05 − 0.10 − 0.14
on on working memory capacity was still significant when controlling for
concurrent the mediators (direct effect = 0.548, standard error = 0.131, 95% CI
processing [0.286, 0.799]), indicating that the mediators did not account for the
tasks: full extent of working memory differences between groups.
accuracy
3. Performance − 0.51** − 0.12 – 0.21 − 0.24 0.72**
We then examined which of the potential mediators played a sig
on nificant role in the relation between giftedness and working memory
concurrent capacity. Executive control, as indexed by both RT and ER, was signif
processing icantly related only to intellectual giftedness, but not to working
tasks:
memory (Fig. 4B); contrary to our hypotheses, executive control failed
response
time to mediate group-related differences in working memory capacity (for
4. Executive − 0.18 − 0.20 0.19 – − 0.03 0.10 RT: indirect effect = 0.030, standard error = 0.040, 95% CI [− 0.042,
control (RT) 0.119]; for ER: indirect effect = 0.035, standard error = 0.036, 95%
5. Executive 0.19 − 0.15 − 0.25 − 0.20 – − 0.34 CI [− 0.033, 0.113]). Processing speed, indexed as overall response times
control (ER)
6. Median − 0.45** − 0.23 0.63** 0.35 − 0.40* –
on the ANT, was related only to working memory capacity, not intel
overall RT lectual giftedness; it also failed to mediate group-related differences in
working memory capacity (indirect effect = − 0.003, standard
Note. **p < .01, *p < .05; RT: response time, PE: proportion of errors. All p-
error = 0.031, 95% CI [− 0.074, 0.053]).
values was corrected by the Holm’s method. All correlations above the diagonal
were these of gifted children. All correlations below the diagonal were these of
The only significant mediation was observed for processing time on
nongifted children. the problems of the ACCES working memory task, which were
7
A) b = .483** Working memory

Intellectual giftedness
capacity
B) b = .244* b = -.023
Processing accuracy
b = -.214* b = -.317**
Processing time
b = -.329** Executive control b = -.061

response time
b = -.305** b = -.078
Executive control
error rate
b = .009 b = -.204**
Overall
response time
b = .367** Working memory

Intellectual giftedness
capacity
Fig. 4. Relationship between intellectual giftedness (gifted vs. nongifted) and working memory capacity in a simple regression (A) and in a multiple regression
analysis, controlling for response time and accuracy in the concurrent processing tasks, response time and error rate in executive control, and overall response speed
(B). Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
significantly related to both intellectual giftedness and working memory These findings are in line with the literature indicating that time
capacity (Fig. 4B). This higher efficiency of intellectually gifted children spent in the concurrent processing phase is inversely related to recall
on concurrent problems partly mediated their higher working memory scores (Barrouillet et al., 2004; Maehara & Saito, 2007; Towse et al.,
capacity (indirect effect = 0.101, standard error = 0.051, 95% CI 1998). In this case, the greater speed of gifted children in the concurrent
[0.021, 0.229]). Processing accuracy, on the other hand, was related to processing task apparently allows them to refresh their memory traces
giftedness but not working memory capacity, and did not significantly faster, increasing their performance in working memory (Vergauwe
mediate the relationship between the two (indirect effect = 0.008, et al., 2014). Of course, the mediation analysis performed here cannot
standard error = 0.034, 95% CI [− 0.064, 0.076]). definitely establish causality, but the fact that problem solving time
mediated the relation between intelligence and WMC makes this the
4. Discussion most likely explanation for the working memory capacity advantage of
gifted children available at present.
Previous studies have shown that intellectually gifted children have As noted above, this advantage in problem solving speed can be
higher working memory capacity than their peers (Calero et al., 2007; viewed as more efficient problem solving on the part of gifted children
Hoard et al., 2008; Leikin et al., 2013; Rodríguez-Naveiras et al., 2019; (Vogelaar et al., 2017, 2019), rather than a lower-level difference in
van Viersen et al., 2014). The objective of this study was to explore processing speed (Danthiir et al., 2005): concurrent problems to be
cognitive processes involved in this relationship between intellectual solved in a complex span task involve cognitive operations such as
giftedness and working memory capacity. sentence verification and arithmetic problems, which can leverage the
Among the potential determinants of working memory capacity we higher intellectual abilities of gifted children. Our findings confirmed
investigated, only response time in the concurrent processing task partly that intellectually gifted children did not respond faster on the ANT than
mediated the higher performance of intellectually gifted children in nongifted children, indicating that they do not have a general advantage
working memory. Our results showed that gifted children responded in terms of low-level processing speed, on this task at least. Thus, the
better and faster to the problems in the concurrent processing task. In advantage of intellectually gifted children in terms of speed would be
other words, gifted children responded more quickly to problems in the moderated by the demands of the task at hand (Geary & Brown, 1991;
concurrent processing task without neglecting accuracy. Previous Lajoie & Shore, 1986). Therefore, intellectual giftedness is not neces
studies have shown that this problem-solving time component partly sarily synonymous with faster performance (Reams et al., 1990).
mediates the relationship between storage and high-order cognition Moreover, low-level processing speed did not mediate the relationship
(Engle et al., 1992; Friedman & Miyake, 2004; Unsworth et al., 2009). In between intellectual giftedness and working memory capacity at all,
the same vein, our findings suggest that problem-solving time partly confirming that the role of problem-solving speed is best understood as a
accounts for the relation between intellectual giftedness and working role of the higher ability of gifted children to solve complex problems.
memory capacity. In terms of understanding mechanisms of working memory capacity
8
more broadly, the present study leads to three conclusions. First, the flankers and cues) which need low-cost cognitive processing that should
bivariate correlations between WMC and the other measures were not depend on intelligence to a large extent, and it also has the advan
highly similar in the two groups of children, confirming that de tage of having a common version that is well-established for use with
terminants of working memory capacity are comparable in intellectually typical children (Fan et al., 2002). However, our classic version of ANT
gifted children and in their nongifted peers. In other words, there does has some limitations (Callejas et al., 2005; Ishigami & Klein, 2010). The
not seem to be a specific mechanism operating in gifted children. Sec alerting and orienting networks performance were both estimated by
ond, executive control did not mediate the higher performance of these cue condition (i.e. no and double cue for alerting; center and spatial cues
children in working memory tasks. Thus, we showed a co-occurrence for orienting). Including a condition specifically dedicated to the esti
between an efficient executive control system and a high working mation of the alerting and orienting networks performance could
memory span in intellectually gifted children, but no direct relation improve the measure of these two aspects of attentional functioning
between these two findings. This conclusion is directly opposite to the (Ishigami & Klein, 2010). In addition, the ANT was often perceived as
prediction we had made for the study, and unexpected given previous long and boring by the children (Ishigami & Klein, 2015). Although
studies showing a strong relationship between executive control and participants demonstrated few omission errors, this boring aspect of this
WMC (Heitz & Engle, 2007; Redick & Engle, 2006; Shipstead et al., task can have an impact on children’s motivation and on the accuracy of
2012; Unsworth & Spillers, 2010). On the other hand, not all previous attentional measures.
studies have found this relationship (Friedman & Miyake, 2004; Lie More generally, we based our experiment on one single measure of
fooghe et al., 2008), and executive control is not the sole determinant of executive control, but this is a multidimensional construct and the use of
WMC performance (Bailey et al., 2011; Dunlosky & Kane, 2007). Our multiple measures is desirable to estimate more precisely this type of
findings reinforce the idea that executive control is not always the most complex psychological constructs. Although we chose to use the ANT
important driver of individual differences in working memory capacity. due to its ability to assess three attentional networks in a short time,
Third, and conversely, our findings strongly support the importance of future research may be interested in using other measures of executive
time in the processing component of working memory tasks (Barrouillet control, such as antisaccade tasks (Friedman & Miyake, 2004; Munoz &
et al., 2004; Maehara & Saito, 2007; Towse et al., 1998). Everling, 2004) or go/no-go tasks (Cragg & Nation, 2008). It would also
Although this was not directly the focus of the present study, it is be worth paying particular attention to the psychometric properties of
noteworthy that intellectually gifted children did not substantially differ the task: although the temporal stability of the executive control mea
from their peers in terms of alertness or orientation, but that they were sure in the ANT is considered as adequate, its internal consistency tends
both faster and more accurate for the executive control network. This to be low, a finding echoed in the present study (MacLeod et al., 2010).
pattern cannot be explained by a different speed-accuracy trade off in Our study was mainly focused on one of several profiles of giftedness
the gifted group, given that gifted children were both faster and more (see Castejón et al., 2016 for details). Indeed, some types of giftedness
accurate, to a similar extent. These results highlight that intellectual are associated with particular profiles of working memory performance
giftedness does not come with better performance for all aspects of (Benbow & Minor, 1990; Dark & Benbow, 1994). Moreover, some
attention (Aubry & Bourdin, in press). This characteristic may intellectually gifted children can be underachieving. These children
contribute to the divergence usually observed between parents’ and demonstrate a large discrepancy between their high intellectual poten
teachers’ impressions of the attentional abilities of intellectually gifted tial and their academic achievements (Reis & McCoach, 2016). In our
children (Rommelse et al., 2017). sample, all intellectually gifted children had very good school grades.
Our findings are thus limited to intellectually gifted children with no
4.1. Limitations of our study academic difficulties, and future research could be interested in gifted
children with lower achievements: this population may be more difficult
Like Unsworth et al., 2009, our results suggest that processing time to sample, but they may also demonstrate different patterns of attention
did not fully account for the predictive power of intelligence, although it and memory performance.
did partly explain the correlation with WMC. Among other potential
explaining factors, long-term memory store is also an important 4.2. Summary and conclusions
construct involved in the functioning of working memory capacity
(Unsworth et al., 2014; Unsworth & Spillers, 2010). The ability to Intellectual abilities are known to be closely linked to working
retrieve items for long-term memory may play as crucial a role as the memory capacity (Ackerman et al., 2005). Although the relation be
ability to actively maintain information (Unsworth & Engle, 2007b), and tween high IQ and WMC is clearly known, the nature of this relation is
this is a possible research direction that could be explored in future unclear. The aim of the current study was to investigate the de
studies. terminants of the relationship between working memory capacity and
In addition, the use of memory strategies also contributes to working intellectual giftedness. Our findings confirmed that working memory
memory capacity (Bailey et al., 2011; Dunlosky & Kane, 2007), and capacity is indeed related to intellectual giftedness, and that high
gifted children tend to use more effective strategies than nongifted working memory capacity is relatively common among gifted children.
children (Gaultney et al., 1996; Harnishfeger & Bjorklund, 1994). Gifted The current results provided important information by showing that the
children are also more adaptable in strategy use than their peers (Coyle speed of resolving simple problems involved in working memory tasks
et al., 1998), and thus could be better able to tailor their mnemonic contributes to the higher WMC of gifted children, whereas executive
strategy to the effortful situation of a WMC task. This could involve control did not appear to play a direct role in this relation. Working
discovering an effective mnemonic strategy over the first few trials, and memory assessment cannot be viewed directly as a tool for the identi
then keeping this strategy over the rest of the task (Gaultney et al., fication of intellectual giftedness, but it can be used to extend classic
1996). In this case, their higher WMC could be related to expending less intellectual scales such as the Wechsler scales. Assessing cognitive fea
mental effort to achieve the same cognitive processing as nongifted tures related to intelligence, beyond IQ itself, also has the advantage of
children in the working memory task thanks to more effective strategy offering a better and more complete understanding of the cognitive
use. Preliminary data collected in the current study suggest qualitatively profile of each child and its specificities (Acar et al., 2016; Cao et al.,
that this may be the case, but more detailed investigation would be 2017), paving the way for better individual support.
needed to explore this possibility.
One aspect of the current study that could be improved is measure Funding
ment of attention. The ANT has the advantage of being a quick assess
ment of attentional networks performance, and of using stimuli (i.e. This research was supported by the Regional Council of Hauts de
9
France and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Calero, M. D., García-Martín, M. B., Jiménez, M. I., Kazén, M., & Araque, A. (2007). Self-
regulation advantage for high-IQ children: Findings from a research study. Learning
and Individual Differences, 17(4), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
CRediT authorship contribution statement lindif.2007.03.012
Callejas, A., Lupiàñez, J., Funes, M. J., & Tudela, P. (2005). Modulations among the
alerting, orienting and executive control networks. Experimental Brain Research, 167
B.B. coordinated the study. A.A. and B.B. designed the study. A.A.
(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-2365-z
performed the data collection. A.A and C.G. performed all statistical Cao, T. H., Jung, J. Y., & Lee, J. (2017). Assessment in gifted education: A review of the
analyses. All authors participated in manuscript redaction. literature from 2005 to 2016. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28, 163–203. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17714572
Castejón, J. L., Gilar, R., Miñano, P., & González, M. (2016). Latent class cluster analysis
Declaration of competing interest in exploring different profiles of gifted and talented students. Learning and Individual
Differences, 50(C), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.003
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., &
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786. https://doi.org/10.3758/
the work reported in this paper. BF03196772
Cook, R. D. (1977). Detection of influential observation in linear regression.
Technometrics, 19(1), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1977.10489493
Acknowledgements Cowan, N. (2014). Working memory underpins cognitive development, learning, and
education. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 197–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/
The authors thank the children who participated in the study and s10648-013-9246-y
Cowan, N. (2017). The many faces of working memory and short-term storage.
their families, as well as the elementary and middle schools which Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-
authorized the study. The authors heartily thank Florence Pâris, Barbara 1191-6
Martin, Jean-Pierre Carron and the Académie de Versailles for their Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Scott Saults, J., Morey, C. C., Mattox, S., Hismjatullina, A., &
Conway, A. R. A. (2005). On the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in
precious help in conducting this study. working memory and cognitive aptitudes. Cognitive Psychology, 51(1), 42–100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.12.001
References Coyle, T. R., Read, L. E., Gaultney, J. F., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1998). Giftedness and
variability in strategic processing on a multitrial memory task: Evidence for stability
in gifted cognition. Learning and Individual Differences, 10(4), 273–290. https://doi.
Acar, S., Sen, S., & Cayirdag, N. (2016). Consistency of the performance and
org/10.1016/S1041-6080(99)80123-X
nonperformance methods in gifted identification. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2),
Cragg, L., & Nation, K. (2008). Go or no-go? Developmental improvements in the
81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216634438
efficiency of response inhibition in mid-childhood. Developmental Science, 11,
Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence:
819–827. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00730.x
The same or different constructs? Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 30–60. https://doi.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and
org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.30
reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466. https://doi.
Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working
org/10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90312-6
memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
Danthiir, V., Wilhelm, O., Wilhelm, O., Schulze, R., Schulze, R., & Roberts, R. (2005).
106(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003
Factor structure and validity of paper-and-pencil measures of mental speed:
Alloway, T. P., & Elsworth, M. (2012). An investigation of cognitive skills and behavior in
Evidence for a higher-order model? Intelligence, 33(491), 514. https://doi.org/
high ability students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 891–895. https://doi.
10.1016/j.intell.2005.03.003
org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.02.001
Dark, V. J., & Benbow, C. P. (1994). Type of stimulus mediates the relationship between
Arffa, S. (2007). The relationship of intelligence to executive function and non-executive
working-memory performance and type of precocity. Intelligence, 19(3), 337–357.
function measures in a sample of average, above average, and gifted youth. Archives
https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(94)90006-X
of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 969–978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Duan, X., Shi, J., Wu, J., Mou, Y., Cui, H., & Wang, G. (2009). Electrophysiological
acn.2007.08.001
correlates for response inhibition in intellectually gifted children: A Go/NoGo study.
Assouline, S. G., Foley Nicpon, M., & Whiteman, C. (2009). Cognitive and psychosocial
Neuroscience Letters, 457(1), 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2009.04.006
characteristics of gifted students with written language disability. Gifted Child
Dunlosky, J., & Kane, M. J. (2007). The contributions of strategy use to working memory
Quarterly, 54(2), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209355974
span: A comparison of strategy assessment methods. Quarterly Journal of
Aubry, A., & Bourdin, B. (2018). Short forms of Wechsler scales assessing the
Experimental Psychology, 60(9), 1227–1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/
intellectually gifted children using simulation data. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–12.
17470210600926075
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00830
Efron, B. (1988). Bootstrap confidence intervals: Good or bad? Psychological Bulletin, 104
Aubry, A., & Bourdin, B. (2021). Alerting, orienting, executive control in intellectually
(2), 293–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.104.2.293
gifted children. Brain and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2148 (in press).
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1986). Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends
intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Statistical Science, 1(1), 54–75.
in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)
https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177013815
01538-2
Engle, R. W., Cantor, J., & Carullo, J. J. (1992). Individual differences in working
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and
memory and comprehension: A test of four hypotheses. Journal of Experimental
Motivation, 8, 47–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 972–992. https://doi.org/
Bailey, H., Dunlosky, J., & Kane, M. J. (2011). Contribution of strategy use to
10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.972
performance on complex and simple span tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39(3),
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working
447–461. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0034-3
memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable
Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs.
approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 309–331. https://doi.
Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379–384. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192707
org/10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/
Neuroscience, 14(3), 340–347. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892902317361886
10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W.
Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., & Camos, V. (2004). Time constraints and resource sharing
(2014). Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory
in adults’ working memory spans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133
capacity. Memory & Cognition, 43(2), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-
(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.83
014-0461-7
Barrouillet, P., Gavens, N., Vergauwe, E., Gaillard, V., & Camos, V. (2009). Working
Friedman, N., & Miyake, A. (2017). Unity and diversity of executive functions: Individual
memory span development: A time-based resource-sharing model account.
differences as a window on cognitive structure. Cortex, 86(186), 204. https://doi.org
Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014615
/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.023.
Becker, N., Schmitz, F., Göritz, A., & Spinath, F. (2016). Sometimes more is better, and
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference
sometimes less is better: Task complexity moderates the response time accuracy
control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
correlation. Journal of Intelligence, 4, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/
General, 133(1), 101–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101
jintelligence4030011
Fry, A. F., & Hale, S. (2000). Relationships among processing speed, working memory
Benbow, C. P., & Minor, L. L. (1990). Cognitive profiles of verbally and mathematically
and fluid intelligence in children. Biological Psychology, 54(1–3), 1–34. https://doi.
precocious students: Implications for identification of the gifted. Gifted Child
org/10.1016/s0301-0511(00)00051-x
Quarterly, 34(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629003400105
Gaillard, V., Barrouillet, P., Jarrold, C., & Camos, V. (2011). Developmental differences
Blair, C. (2006). How similar are fluid cognition and general intelligence? A
in working memory: Where do they come from? Journal of Experimental Child
developmental neuroscience perspective on fluid cognition as an aspect of human
Psychology, 110(3), 469–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.05.004
cognitive ability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(2), 109–125. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0140525X06009034
10
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The structure of Logie, R. H. (2011). The functional organization and capacity limits of working memory.
working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 240–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/
177–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177 0963721411415340
Gaultney, J. F., Bjorklund, D. F., & Goldstein, D. (1996). To be young, gifted, and Ma, J., Kang, H., Kim, J., Jeong, H., Im, J., Namgung, E., Kim, M., Lee, S., Kim, T., Oh, J.,
strategic: Advantages for memory performance. Journal of Experimental Child Chung, Y., Lyoo, I., Lim, S., & Yoon, S. (2017). Network attributes underlying
Psychology, 61(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.0002 intellectual giftedness in the developing brain. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–9. https://
Geary, D. C., & Brown, S. C. (1991). Cognitive addition: Strategy choice and speed-of- doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11593-3
processing differences in gifted, normal, and mathematically disabled children. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual
Developmental Psychology, 27, 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012- Review of Psychology, 58(1), 593–614. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
1649.27.3.398 psych.58.110405.085542
Giofrè, D., Mammarella, I. C., & Cornoldi, C. (2013). The structure of working memory MacLeod, J. W., Lawrence, M. A., McConnell, M. M., Eskes, G. A., Klein, R. M., &
and how it relates to intelligence in children. Intelligence, 41, 396–406. https://doi. Shore, D. I. (2010). Appraising the ANT: Psychometric and theoretical considerations
org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.06.006 of the Attention Network Test. Neuropsychology, 24(5), 637–651. https://doi.org/
Goldhammer, F., & Entink, R. (2011). Speed of reasoning and its relation to reasoning 10.1037/a0019803
ability. Intelligence, 39, 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.02.001 Maehara, Y., & Saito, S. (2007). The relationship between processing and storage in
Gonthier, C., Aubry, A., & Bourdin, B. (2017). Measuring working memory capacity in working memory span: Not two sides of the same coin. Journal of Memory and
children using adaptive tasks: Example validation of an adaptive complex span. Language, 56(2), 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.009
Behavior Research Methods, 27(8), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0916- McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L., McDaniel, M. A., Balota, D. A., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2010).
4 The relationship between working memory capacity and executive functioning:
Gonthier, C., Thomassin, N., & Roulin, J.-L. (2015). The composite complex span: French Evidence for a common executive attention construct. Neuropsychology, 24(2),
validation of a short working memory task. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 222–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017619
233–242. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0566-3 McClain, M.-C., & Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States
Harnishfeger, K. K., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1994). A developmental perspective on today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School
individual differences in inhibition. Learning and Individual Differences, 6(3), Psychology, 28(1), 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.643757
331–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(94)90021-3 McCoach, D. B., Rambo, K. E., & Welsh, M. (2013). Assessing the growth of gifted
Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Focusing the spotlight: Individual differences in students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/
visual attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 0016986212463873
217–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.217 McIntosh, D. E., Dixon, F. A., & Pierson, E. E. (2012). Use of intelligence tests in the
Hoard, M. K., Geary, D. C., Byrd-Craven, J., & Nugent, L. (2008). Mathematical cognition identification of giftedness. In D. P. Flanagan, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary
in intellectually precocious first graders. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, intellectual assessment theories, tests, and issues (pp. 623–642). NY: New York.
251–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640801982338 Morelock, M., & Morrison, K. (1999). Differentiating ‘developmentally appropriate’: The
Ishigami, Y., & Klein, R. M. (2010). Repeated measurement of the components of multidimensional curriculum model for young gifted children. Roeper Review, 21,
attention using two versions of the Attention Network Test (ANT): Stability, 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199909553961
isolability, robustness, and reliability. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 190, Mrazik, M., & Dombrowski, S. (2010). The neurobiological foundations of giftedness.
117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.04.019 Roeper Review, 32, 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2010.508154
Ishigami, Y., & Klein, R. M. (2015). Repeated measurement of the components of Munoz, D. P., & Everling, S. (2004). Look away: The anti-saccade task and the voluntary
attention with young children using the attention network test: Stability, isolability, control of eye movement. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 218–228. https://doi.org/
robustness, and reliability. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16, 144–159. 10.1038/nrn1345
https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2013.803971 Nettelbeck, T., Edwards, C., & Vreugdenhil, A. (1986). Inspection time and IQ: Evidence
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled- for a mental speed—Ability association. Personality and Individual Differences, 7(5),
attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: 633–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(86)90032-2
General, 130(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.2.169 Neubauer, A. (1990). Speed of information processing in the hick paradigm and response
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of latencies in a psychometric intelligence test. Personality and Individual Differences, 11
attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to (2), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(90)90007-e
Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70. https:// Nouwens, S., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2016). How working memory relates to
doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47 children’s reading comprehension: The importance of domain-specificity in storage
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. and processing. Reading and Writing, 30(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/
(2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to s11145-016-9665-5
verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Oberauer, K., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., & Süß, H.-M. (2005). Working memory and
Psychology: General, 133, 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189 intelligence—their correlation and their relation: Comment on Ackerman, Beier, and
Kerr, B., & Multon, K. (2015). The development of gender identity, gender roles, and Boyle (2005). Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
gender relations in gifted students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 2909.131.1.61
183–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00194.x Oberauer, K., Süß, H.-M., Wilhelm, O., & Wittman, W. W. (2003). The multiple faces of
Konrad, K., Neufang, S., Thiel, C. M., Specht, K., Hanisch, C., Fan, J., … Fink, G. R. working memory: Storage, processing, supervision, and coordination. Intelligence, 31
(2005). Development of attentional networks: An fMRI study with children and (2), 167–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00115-0
adults. NeuroImage, 28(2), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2012). The attention system of the human brain: 20 years
neuroimage.2005.06.065 after. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1146/
Kornmann, J., Zettler, I., Kammerer, Y., Gerjets, P., & Trautwein, U. (2015). What annurev-neuro-062111-150525
characterizes children nominated as gifted by teachers? A closer consideration of Porath, M. (2006). The conceptual underpinnings of giftedness: Developmental and
working memory and intelligence. High Ability Studies, 26(1), 75–92. https://doi. educational implications. High Ability Studies, 17, 145–158. https://doi.org/
org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1033513 10.1080/13598130601121268
Kovacs, K., & Conway, A. R. A. (2016). Process overlap theory: A unified account of the Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
general factor of intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 27(3), 151–177. https://doi.org/ effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36, 717–731. https://
10.1080/1047840X.2016.1153946 doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553
Krumm, S., Ziegler, M., & Buehner, M. (2008). Reasoning and working memory as Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
predictors of school grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2), 248–257. and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.08.002 Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working- Raghubar, K. P., Barnes, M. A., & Hecht, S. A. (2010). Working memory and
memory capacity?! Intelligence, 14(4), 389–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160- mathematics: A review of developmental, individual difference, and cognitive
2896(05)80012-1 approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(2), 110–122. https://doi.org/
Lajoie, S. P., & Shore, B. M. (1986). Intelligence: The speed and accuracy tradeoff in high 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.005
aptitude individuals. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9(2), 85–104. https://doi. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for raven’s progressive matrices and
org/10.1177/016235328600900201 vocabulary scales. Section 3, the standard progressive matrices. Oxford, England: Oxford
Leikin, M., Paz-Baruch, N., & Leikin, R. (2013). Memory abilities in generally gifted and Psychologists Press/San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
excelling-in-mathematics adolescents. Intelligence, 41(5), 566–578. https://doi.org/ Reams, R., Chamrad, D., & Robinson, N. (1990). The race is not necessarily to the swift:
10.1016/j.intell.2013.07.018 Validity of WISC-R bonus points for speed. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(3), 108–110.
Liefooghe, B., Barrouillet, P., Vandierendonck, A., & Camos, V. (2008). Working memory https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629003400304
costs of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Redick, T. S., Broadway, J. M., Meier, M. E., Kuriakose, P. S., Unsworth, N., Kane, M. J.,
Cognition, 34(3), 478–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.478 & Engle, R. W. (2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated
Liu, T., Xiao, T., Shi, J., & Zhao, D. (2011a). Response preparation and cognitive control complex span tasks. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(3), 164–171.
of highly intelligent children: A Go-Nogo event-related potential study. Neuroscience, https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000123
180(C), 122–128 (doi:j.neuroscience.2011.02.022). Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2006). Working memory capacity and attention network
Liu, T., Xiao, T., Shi, J., & Zhao, L. (2011b). Sensory gating, inhibition control and child test performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(5), 713–721. https://doi.org/
intelligence: An event-related potentials study. Neuroscience, 189(C), 250–257. 10.1002/acp.1224
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.05.009
11
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2016). The underachievement of gifted students: What do Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007a). On the division of short-term and working
we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152–170. https://doi. memory: An examination of simple and complex span and their relation to higher
org/10.1177/001698620004400302 order abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 133(6), 1038–1066. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Reynolds, M. R., & Keith, T. Z. (2007). Spearman’s law of diminishing returns in 0033-2909.133.6.1038
hierarchical models of intelligence for children and adolescents. Intelligence, 35(3), Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007b). The nature of individual differences in working
267–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.08.002 memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search
Roberts, K. L., Strait, J. A. E., & Decker, S. L. (2018). Developmental trajectories of from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114(1), 104–132. https://doi.org/
verbal, static visual-spatial, and dynamic visual-spatial working memory. 10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.104
Contemporary School Psychology, 106(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688- Unsworth, N., Fukuda, K., Awh, E., & Vogel, E. K. (2014). Working memory and fluid
018-0176-z intelligence: Capacity, attention control, and secondary memory retrieval. Cognitive
Rodríguez-Naveiras, E., Verche, E., Hernández-Lastiri, P., Montero, R., & Borges, Á. Psychology, 71, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.003
(2019). Differences in working memory between gifted or talented students and Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of
community samples: A meta-analysis. Psicothema, 31(3), 255–262. https://doi.org/ the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 498–505. https://doi.org/
10.7334/psicothema2019.18 10.3758/BF03192720
Rommelse, N., Antshel, K., Smeets, S., Greven, C., Hoogeveen, L., Faraone, S. V., & Unsworth, N., Redick, T. S., Heitz, R. P., Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2009).
Hartman, C. A. (2017). High intelligence and the risk of ADHD and other Complex working memory span tasks and higher-order cognition: A latent-variable
psychopathology. British Journal of Psychiatry, 211(6), 359–364. https://doi.org/ analysis of the relationship between processing and storage. Memory, 17, 635–654.
10.1192/bjp.bp.116.184382 https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210902998047
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Unsworth, N., & Spillers, G. J. (2010). Working memory capacity: Attention control,
Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 secondary memory, or both? A direct test of the dual-component model. Journal of
Rueda, M. R., Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Halparin, J. D., Gruber, D. B., Lercari, L. P., & Memory and Language, 62, 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.02.001
Posner, M. I. (2004). Development of attentional networks in childhood. Vaivre-Douret, L. (2011). Developmental and cognitive characteristics of “high-level
Neuropsychologia, 42(8), 1029–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. potentialities” (highly gifted) children. International Journal Of Pediatrics, 2011,
neuropsychologia.2003.12.012 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/420297
Schneider, W. J. (2013). What if we took our models seriously? Estimating latent scores Vandierendonck, A., De Vooght, G., & Van der Goten, K. (1998). Does random time
in individuals. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(2), 186–201. https://doi. interval generation interfere with working memory executive functions? European
org/10.1177/0734282913478046 Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 10(4), 413–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Seigneuric, A., & Ehrlich, M.-F. (2005). Contribution of working memory capacity to 713752284
children’s reading comprehension: A longitudinal investigation. Reading and Writing, Vergauwe, E., Camos, V., & Barrouillet, P. (2014). The impact of storage on processing:
18(7–9), 617–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-2038-0 How is information maintained in working memory? Journal of Experimental
Sheppard, L., & Vernon, P. (2008). Intelligence and speed of information-processing: A Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(4), 1072–1095. https://doi.org/
review of 50 years of research. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 535–551. 10.1037/a0035779
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.015 van Viersen, S., Kroesbergen, E. H., Slot, E. M., & de Bree, E. H. (2014). High reading
Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Working memory capacity and skills mask dyslexia in gifted children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 189–199.
visual attention: Top-down and bottom-up guidance. Quarterly Journal of https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414538517
Experimental Psychology, 65(3), 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Vock, M., & Holling, H. (2008). The measurement of visuo–spatial and verbal–numerical
17470218.2012.655698 working memory: Development of IRT-based scales. Intelligence, 36, 161–182.
Solé-Casals, J., Serra-Grabulosa, J., Romero-Garcia, R., Vilaseca, G., Adan, A., Vilaró, N., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.02.004
Bargalló, N., & Bullmore, E. (2019). Structural brain network of gifted children has a Vogelaar, B., Bakker, M., Hoogeveen, L., & Resing, W. C. M. (2017). Dynamic testing of
more integrated and versatile topology. Brain Structure & Function, 14(5), 1–11. gifted and average-ability children’s analogy problem solving: Does executive
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-019-01914-9 functioning play a role? Psychology in the Schools, 54(8), 837–851. https://doi.org/
Steiner, H. H., & Carr, M. (2003). Cognitive development in gifted children: Toward a 10.1002/pits.22032
more precise understanding of emerging differences in intelligence. Educational Vogelaar, Sweijen, & Resing. (2019). Gifted and average-ability children’s potential for
Psychology Review, 15(3), 215–246. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024636317011 solving analogy items. Journal of Intelligence, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/
Thaler, N. S., Goldstein, G., Pettegrew, J. W., Luther, J. F., Reynolds, C. R., & Allen, D. N. jintelligence7030019, 19–15.
(2013). Developmental aspects of working and associative memory. Archives of Warne, R. T. (2015). Five reasons to put the g: Back into giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly,
Clinical Neuropsychology, 28(4), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acs114 60, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215605360
Thompson, L. A., & Oehlert, J. (2010). The etiology of giftedness. Learning and Individual Wechsler, D. (2005). Manuel de l’Échelle d’Intelligence de Wechsler pour Enfants-4e édition
Differences, 20(4), 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.004 [Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children—Fourth edition]. Paris: Éditions
Tourva, A., Spanoudis, G., & Demetriou, A. (2016). Cognitive correlates of developing du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.
intelligence: The contribution of working memory, processing speed and attention. Wilhelm, O., Hildebrandt, A., & Oberauer, K. (2013). What is working memory capacity,
Intelligence, 54(C), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.12.001 and how can we measure it? Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–22. https://doi.org/
Towse, J. N., Hitch, G. J., & Hutton, U. (1998). A reevaluation of working memory 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00433
capacity in children. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(2), 195–217. https://doi. Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Dixson, D. D. (2019). Gifted
org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2574 students. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-psych-010418-102846
12

Paper 01 - Gifted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper 01 - Gifted

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper 01 - Gifted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acta Psychologica 218 (2021) 103358

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Explaining the high working memory capacity of gifted children:

1. Introduction memory capacity is thought to facilitate complex cognitive processing

to-be-remembered stimuli in the same order. 2.2.2. Attentional abilities

Fig. 1. Procedure for the Attention Network Test.

n M SD Skew Kurtosis n M SD Skew Kurtosis

M SD Skew Kurtosis M SD Skew Kurtosis

Fig. 2. Working memory scores for gifted and nongifted children.

Error rate (in %)

Alerting Orienting Executive Control Alerting Orienting Executive Control

A) b = .483** Working memory

b = -.329** Executive control b = -.061

b = .367** Working memory

You might also like