The impact of working memory load on task execution and online plan adjustment during multitasking in a virtual environment

Three experiments investigated the impact of working memory load on online plan adjustment during a test of multitasking in young, nonexpert, adult participants. Multitasking was assessed using the Edinburgh Virtual Errands Test (EVET). Participants were asked to memorize either good or poor plans for performing multiple errands and were assessed both on task completion and on the extent to which they modified their plans during EVET performance. EVET was performed twice, with and without a secondary task loading a component of working memory. In Experiment 1, articulatory suppression was used to load the phonological loop. In Experiment 2, oral random generation was used to load executive functions. In Experiment 3, spatial working memory was loaded with an auditory spatial localization task. EVET performance for both good- and poor-planning groups was disrupted by random generation and sound localization, but not by articulatory suppression. Additionally, people given a poor plan were able to overcome this initial disadvantage by modifying their plans online. It was concluded that, in addition to executive functions, multiple errands performance draws heavily on spatial, but not verbal, working memory resources but can be successfully completed on the basis of modifying plans online, despite a secondary task load

Introduction to the Special issue: Current directions in expertise research

In June, we launched the Journal of Expertise (JoE), the first scientific journal devoted to research on expertise. As we explained in our inaugural editorial (Hambrick & Campitelli, 2018), the aim of JoE is to advance scientific understanding of expertise, providing researchers with an outlet for publishing work reflecting a wide range of methodological and theoretical perspectives..

Introduction: A brief history of the science of expertise and overview of the book

This chapter covers the major approaches to research on expertise. It also covers the behavioral approach. The chapter explains methodological and statistical issues and pitfalls in expertise research and discusses the role of various ability and non-ability factors in expertise. It covers processes underlying chess expertise, while James Staszewski analyzes expertise in Rubik's Cube solving. The chapter discusses the role of intelligence for developing professional expertise and summarizes findings from the largest-ever study of prodigies. It gives an update on the role of talent in drawing, and Rebecca Chamberlain presents evidence from her multifactorial study of drawing expertise. The chapter provides an overview of neuroimaging techniques, particularly as applied to expertise research. It covers neural underpinnings of expertise in three domains and identifies neural correlates of motor expertise in real-world domains such as surgery

Checking the “Academic Selection” argument. Chess players outperform non-chess players in cognitive skills related to intelligence: A meta-analysis

Substantial research in the psychology of expertise has shown that experts in several fields (e.g., science, mathematics) perform better than non-experts on standardized tests of intelligence. This evidence suggests that intelligence plays an important role in the acquisition of expertise. However, a counter argument is that the difference between experts and non-experts is not due to individuals' traits but to academic selection processes. For instance, in science, high scores on standardized tests (e.g., SAT and then GRE) are needed to be admitted to a university program for training. Thus, the “academic selection process” hypothesis is that expert vs. non-expert differences in cognitive ability reflect ability-related differences in access to training opportunities. To test this hypothesis, we focused on a domain in which there are no selection processes based on test scores: chess. This meta-analysis revealed that chess players outperformed non-chess players in intelligence-related skills ( = 0.49). Therefore, this outcome does not corroborate the academic selection process argument, and consequently, supports the idea that access to training alone cannot explain expert performance

The science of expertise: Behavioral, neural, and genetic approaches to complex skill

Offering the broadest review of psychological perspectives on human expertise to date, this volume covers behavioral, computational, neural, and genetic approaches to understanding complex skill. The chapters show how performance in music, the arts, sports, games, medicine, and other domains reflects basic traits such as personality and intelligence, as well as knowledge and skills acquired through training. In doing so, this book moves the field of expertise beyond the duality of "nature vs. nurture" toward an integrative understanding of complex skill. This book is an invaluable resource for researchers and students interested in expertise, and for professionals seeking current reviews of psychological research on expertise

Beyond born versus made: A new look at expertise

Why are some people so much more successful than other people in music, sports, games, business, and other complex domains? This question is the subject of one of psychology's oldest debates. Over 20 years ago, Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer (1993) proposed that individual differences in performance in domains such as these largely reflect accumulated amount of “deliberate practice.” More controversially, making exceptions only for height and body size, Ericsson et al. explicitly rejected any direct role for innate factors (“talent”) in the attainment of expert performance. This view has since become the dominant theoretical account of expertise and has filtered into the popular imagination through books such as Malcolm Gladwell's (2008) Outliers. Nevertheless, as we discuss in this chapter, evidence from recent research converges on the conclusion that this view is not defensible. Recent meta-analyses have demonstrated that although deliberate practice accounts for a sizeable proportion of the variance in performance in complex domains, it consistently leaves an even larger proportion of the variance unexplained and potentially explainable by other factors. In light of this evidence, we offer a “new look” at expertise that takes into account a wide range of factors

The relationship between cognitive ability and chess skill: A comprehensive meta-analysis

Why are some people more skilled in complex domains than other people? Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between cognitive ability and skill in chess. Chess skill correlated positively and significantly with fluid reasoning (Gf) ( = 0.24), comprehension-knowledge (Gc) ( = 0.22), short-term memory (Gsm) ( = 0.25), and processing speed (Gs) ( = 0.24); the meta-analytic average of the correlations was ( = 0.24). Moreover, the correlation between Gf and chess skill was moderated by age ( = 0.32 for youth samples vs. = 0.11 for adult samples), and skill level ( = 0.32 for unranked samples vs. = 0.14 for ranked samples). Interestingly, chess skill correlated more strongly with numerical ability ( = 0.35) than with verbal ability ( = 0.19) or visuospatial ability ( = 0.13). The results suggest that cognitive ability contributes meaningfully to individual differences in chess skill, particularly in young chess players and/or at lower levels of skill

Is deliberate practice all it takes to become an expert?

Poster presentatio