Processing speed and executive attention as causes of intelligence.

Individual differences in processing speed and executive attention have both been proposed as explanations for individual differences in cognitive ability, particularly general and fluid intelligence (Engle et al., 1999; Kail & Salthouse, 1994). Both constructs have long intellectual histories in scientific psychology. This article attempts to describe the historical development of these constructs, particularly as they pertain to intelligence. It also aims to determine the degree to which speed and executive attention are theoretical competitors in explaining individual differences in intelligence. We suggest that attention is the more fundamental mechanism in explaining variation in human intelligence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Nature and measurement of attention control.

Individual differences in the ability to control attention are correlated with a wide range of important outcomes, from academic achievement and job performance to health behaviors and emotion regulation. Nevertheless, the theoretical nature of attention control as a cognitive construct has been the subject of heated debate, spurred on by psychometric issues that have stymied efforts to reliably measure differences in the ability to control attention. For theory to advance, our measures must improve. We introduce three efficient, reliable, and valid tests of attention control that each take less than 3 min to administer: Stroop Squared, Flanker Squared, and Simon Squared. Two studies (online and in-lab) comprising more than 600 participants demonstrate that the three "Squared" tasks have great internal consistency (avg. = .95) and test-retest reliability across sessions (avg. r = .67). Latent variable analyses revealed that the Squared tasks loaded highly on a common factor (avg. loading = .70), which was strongly correlated with an attention control factor based on established measures (avg. r = .81). Moreover, attention control correlated strongly with fluid intelligence, working memory capacity, and processing speed and helped explain their covariation. We found that the Squared attention control tasks accounted for 75% of the variance in multitasking ability at the latent level, and that fluid intelligence, attention control, and processing speed fully accounted for individual differences in multitasking ability. Our results suggest that Stroop Squared, Flanker Squared, and Simon Squared are reliable and valid measures of attention control. The tasks are freely available online: https://osf.io/7q598/. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The visual arrays task: Visual storage capacity or attention control?

Extant literature suggests that performance on visual arrays tasks reflects limited-capacity storage of visual information. However, there is also evidence to suggest that visual arrays task performance reflects individual differences in controlled processing. The purpose of this study is to empirically evaluate the degree to which visual arrays tasks are more closely related to memory storage capacity or measures of attention control. To this end, we conducted new analyses on a series of large data sets that incorporate various versions of a visual arrays task. Based on these analyses, we suggest that the degree to which the visual arrays is related to memory storage ability or effortful attention control may be task-dependent. Specifically, when versions of the task require participants to ignore elements of the target display, individual differences in controlled attention reliably provide unique predictive value. Therefore, at least some versions of the visual arrays tasks can be used as valid indicators of individual differences in attention control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

A toolbox approach to improving the measurement of attention control.

Cognitive tasks that produce reliable and robust effects at the group level often fail to yield reliable and valid individual differences. An ongoing debate among attention researchers is whether conflict resolution mechanisms are task-specific or domain-general, and the lack of correlation between most attention measures seems to favor the view that attention control is not a unitary concept. We have argued that the use of difference scores, particularly in reaction time (RT), is the primary cause of null and conflicting results at the individual differences level, and that methodological issues with existing tasks preclude making strong theoretical conclusions. The present article is an empirical test of this view in which we used a toolbox approach to develop and validate new tasks hypothesized to reflect attention processes. Here, we administered existing, modified, and new attention tasks to over 400 participants (final N = 396). Compared with the traditional Stroop and flanker tasks, performance on the accuracy-based measures was more reliable, had stronger intercorrelations, formed a more coherent latent factor, and had stronger associations to measures of working memory capacity and fluid intelligence. Further, attention control fully accounted for the relationship between working memory capacity and fluid intelligence. These results show that accuracy-based measures can be better suited to individual differences investigations than traditional RT tasks, particularly when the goal is to maximize prediction. We conclude that attention control is a unitary concept. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Reaction time in differential and developmental research: A review and commentary on the problems and alternatives.

Reaction time is believed to be a good indicator of the speed and efficiency of mental processes and is a ubiquitous variable in the behavioral sciences. Despite this popularity, there are numerous issues associated with using reaction time (RT), specifically in differential and developmental research. Here, we identify and focus on two main problems-unreliability and sensitivity to speed-accuracy interactions. The use of difference scores is a primary factor that leads to many RT measures having demonstrably low reliability, and RT measures in general often do not properly account for speed-accuracy interactions. Both factors jeopardize the validity and interpretability of results based on RT. Here, we evaluate conceptually and empirically how these issues affect individual differences research. Although the empirical evidence we provide are primarily within the domains of attention control and task switching, we highlight examples from various other areas of psychological inquiry. We also discuss many of the statistical and methodological alternatives available to researchers conducting correlational studies. Ultimately, we encourage researchers comparing individuals of differing cognitive and developmental levels to strongly consider using these alternatives in lieu of RT, specifically RT difference scores. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Aging and the role of attention in associative learning.

In this study, we investigated whether age-related deficits in cue-outcome associative learning (e.g., Mutter, Atchley, & Plumlee, 2012; Mutter, DeCaro, & Plumlee, 2009; Mutter, Haggbloom, Plumlee, & Schirmer, 2006; Mutter & Williams, 2004) might be due to a decline in older adults' ability to modulate attention to relevant and irrelevant cues. In the first 2 experiments, we used standard blocking and highlighting tasks to indirectly measure the ability to shift attention away from irrelevant stimuli toward relevant, predictive cues (e.g., Kruschke, Kappenman, & Hetrick, 2005). Although there were age differences in prediction accuracy, like young adults, older adults learned to shift attention toward predictive stimuli and ignore irrelevant or less predictive stimuli. This attentional effect was unrelated to either working memory or executive function suggesting that it did not involve voluntary control processes. The third experiment provided further support for this idea. We alternated a category learning task with a dot probe task to more directly assess the development of automatic attentional biases. There were again age differences in category prediction, but young and older adults alike responded more rapidly to the location of a dot probe cued by a stimulus experienced as predictive during the learning task than one cued by a stimulus experienced as nonpredictive. These findings provide converging evidence that even though cue-outcome prediction declines with age, the ability to modulate attention based on the predictive relevance of cues during associative learning remains intact. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).