25, with Group 1 scoring below the other groups and Group 5 scoring above the other groups. Specifically, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons suggested that Group 1 scored below all of the other groups (all p’s < .05) and Group 5 scored above all of the other groups (all p’s < .05). There were no differences between the remaining groups in gF (all p’s > .90). Collectively these results suggest that individuals can have specific deficits or strengths on each of the factors leading to different profiles

selleck compound of performance not only on the factor measures themselves but also on measures of WM storage, WM processing, and gF. A number of theories have been put forth to explain the relation between WM and gF. Unfortunately, no single factor has been shown to fully account for the relation. In the current study we tested whether multiple factors (capacity, attention

control, and secondary memory) would collectively account for the relation. Results from the latent variable analyses clearly demonstrated see more that variation in WM was accounted for by the three different factors as well as by task specific variance. Furthermore, it was shown that WM (both storage and processing) was uniquely related to each factor suggesting that several distinct sources of variance are present in WM. In terms of the relation between WM and gF it was found that WM correlated with gF consistent with many prior studies. Additionally, capacity, attention, control, and secondary memory were each related to gF and in the structural equation models each

factor uniquely related with gF. Importantly, the three factors completely accounted for the relation between WM span and gF. That is, capacity, attention control, and secondary memory, jointly mediated the relation between WM (both storage and processing) and gF. These results are inconsistent with unitary accounts of the relation between WM and higher-order cognition suggesting that resource sharing (Case et al., 1982 and Daneman and Carpenter, 1980), attention control (Engle & Kane, 2004), Inositol oxygenase capacity/scope of attention (Cowan et al., 2005), or secondary memory abilities (Mogle et al., 2008), primarily account for the relation. Rather the current results are very much in line with the multifaceted view of WM, suggesting that individual differences in capacity, attention control, and secondary memory jointly account for individual differences in WM and its relation with gF. The results of the current study point to the multifaceted nature of WM. In particular the results suggest that capacity (or scope of attention), attention control, and secondary memory are important facets of WM and are important for the predictive power of WM. In the current view WM is a system responsible for active maintenance and rapid accessibility of task-relevant information. Working memory represents a distinct set of interacting processes with each being important for a different function.