El rol de la memoria de trabajo y la atención sostenida en la generación de inferencias explicativas

  • Juan Pablo Barreyro Departamento de Procesos Básicos, Instituto de Investigaciones, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Buenos Aires; CONICET, Argentina http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1606-1049
  • Irene Injoque-Ricle Departamento de Procesos Básicos, Instituto de Investigaciones, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Buenos Aires; CONICET, Argentina http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7043-677X
  • Jesica Formoso Departamento de Procesos Básicos, Instituto de Investigaciones, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Buenos Aires; CONICET, Argentina http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3062-4036
  • Debora I. Burin Departamento de Procesos Básicos, Instituto de Investigaciones, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Buenos Aires; CONICET, Argentina
Palabras clave: textos expositivos, inferencias, memoria de trabajo, comprensión, atención sostenida


El propósito de este trabajo consistió en estudiar la relación entre la memoria de trabajo, la capacidad de sostener la atención y la generación de inferencias explicativas-repositivas en la comprensión de textos expositivos. Para ello, 120 alumnos universitarios leyeron dos textos expositivos del área de las ciencias naturales y completaron un cuestionario de generación de inferencia, junto con cuatro pruebas de memoria de trabajo verbal y dos pruebas que miden la capacidad de sostener la atención sobre una tarea. Los resultados indicaron que el componenente ejecutivo de la memoria de trabajo verbal tienen un efecto directo sobre la generación de inferencias, mientras la capacidad de sostener la atención y el almacenamiento de información en la memoria de trabajo verbal tienen un efecto indirecto mediado por el componente ejecutivo. Esto sugiere que las diferencias individuales en la generación de inferencias están vinculadas a las diferencias inviduales en la memoria de trabajo, y también a las diferencias individuales en la capacidad de sostener la atención.


La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.


Abusamra, V., & Joanette, Y. (2012). Lectura, escritura y comprensión de textos: Aspectos cognitivos de una habilidad cultural. Neuropsicologia Latinoamericana, 4(1), 1-4.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). IBM SPSS AMOS 22 User’s Guide. Mount Pleasant, SC: Amos Development Corporation.

Awh, E., & Jonides, J. (2001). Overlapping mechanisms of attention and spatial working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(3), 119-126.

Baddeley, A. D. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20(4), 136-140. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.12.014

Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1-29. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych- 120710-100422

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47-90). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Barreyro, J. P., Cevasco, J., Burin, D. I., & Molinari, C. (2012). Working memory capacity and individual differences in the making of reinstatement and elaborative inferences. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 471-479. doi: 10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n2.38857

Barreyro, J. P., Injoque Ricle, I., Formoso, J., & Burin, D. (en evaluación). Computerized Working Memory Battery (BIMeT-V): Studying the Relation between Working Memory, Verbal Reasoning and Reading Comprehension.

Barth, A., Barnes, M. A., Francis, D., York, M., & Vaughn, S. (2015). Bridging inferences among adequate and struggling adolescent comprehenders and relations to reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 28(5), 587-609. doi: 10.1007/s11145-014-9540-1

Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Kendeou, P. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 206–219. doi: 10.1016/ j.cedpsych.2014.05.003

Brock, S. E., & Knapp, P. K. (1996). Reading comprehension abilities of children with attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Attention Disorders, 1(13), 173-185.

Budd, D., Whitney, P., & Turley, K. (1995). Individual differences in working memory strategies for reading expository text. Memory & Cognition, 23, 735-748. doi: 10.3758/BF03200926

Calvo, M. G. (2004). Relative contribution of vocabulary knowledge and working memory span to elaborative inferences in reading. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 53-65. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2004.07.002

Carlson, S. E., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K., Rapp, D. N., Bohn-Gettler, C. M., Kendeou, P., & White, M. J. (2014). Effects of comprehension skill on inference generation during reading. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 61(3), 258- 274. doi: 10.1080/1034912X.2014.934004

Carretti, B., Borella, E., Cornoldi, C., & De Beni, R. (2009). Role of working memory in explaining the performance of individuals with specific reading comprehension difficulties: A meta-analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 246 –251. doi: 10.1016/ j.lindif.200810.002

Cornoldi, C., & Oakhill, J. V. (2013). Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention. Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Cowan, N. (2012). Working memory capacity. New York, NY: Psychology press.

Currie, N. K., & Cain, K. (2015). Children’s inference generation: The role of vocabulary and working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 137, 57–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.03.005

Diamond, A., & Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1989). Comparison of human infants and rhesus monkeys on Piaget ́s tasks: Evidence of dependence on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Experimental Brain Research, 74(9), 24-40.

Elbro, C., & Buch-Iversen, I. (2013). Activation of background knowledge for inference making: effects on reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(6), 435-452. doi: 10.1080/ 10888438.2013.774005

Freed, J., & Cain, K. (2016). Assessing school-aged children’s inference-making: the effect of story test format in listening comprehension. International Journal of Language & Comunication Disorders, 52, 95–105. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12260

Graesser, A. C., & Bertus, E. L. (1998). The construction of causal inferences while reading expository texts on science and technology. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(3), 247-269. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0203_4

Graesser, A. C., Leon, J. A., & Otero, J. C. (2002). Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1-15). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.

Hair, F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hannon, B. (2012). Understanding the Relative Contributions of Lower Level Word Processes, Higher Level Processes, and Working Memory to Reading Comprehension Performance in Proficient Adult Readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(2), 125-152. doi: 10.1598/0710.33

Harrington, D. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hecker, L., Burns, L., Katz, L., Elkind, J., & Elkind, K. (2002). Benefits of assistive reading software for students with attention disorders. Annals of Dyslexia, 52(1), 243-272.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: limits on long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 336-358. doi: 10.1037/0278- 7393.26.2.336

Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R., & O’Brien, E. J. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 854–865. doi: 10.1037/ a0029468

Kintsch, W., Patel, V. L., & Ericsson, K. A. (1999). The role of long-term working memory in text comprehension. Psychologia, 42(4), 186-198.

Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363

Leon, J. A., & Peñalba, G. E. (2002). Understanding Causality and Temporal Sequence in Scientific Discourse. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon & A. Graesser (Eds.), The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension (pp. 155-178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlabaum.

Loosli, S. V., Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W. J., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2012). Working memory training improves reading processes in typically developing children. Child Neuropsychology, 18(1), 62-78. doi: 10.1080/ 09297049.2011.575772

McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2012). Why does working memory capacity predict variation in reading comprehension? On the influence of mind wandering and executive attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(2), 302-320. doi: 10.1037/ a0025250

Pérez, A. I., Paolieri, D., Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. (2014). The role of working memory in inferential sentence comprehension. Cognitive processing, 15(3), 405-413. doi: 10.1007/s10339-014-0611-7

Prat, C. S., Seo, R., & , & Yamasaki, B. L. (2016). The Role of Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity on Reading Comprehension Ability. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Reading: Reader, Text, and Context (pp. 331-347). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rebollo, M. A., & Montiel, S. (2006). Atención y Funciones Ejecutivas. Revista de Neuropsicología, 42(3), 3-7.

Saux, G., Irrazabal, N. & Burin, D.I. (2014). Comprensión de textos de ciencias en estudiantes universitarios: generación de inferencias causales durante la lectura. Liberabit, 20(2), 305-313.

Shumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner guide to structural equation modeling: Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Singer, M., Harkness, D., & Stewart, T. (1997). Constructing inferences in expository text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 24, 199-228.

Singer, M., & O’Connell, G. (2003). Robust inference processes in expository text comprehension. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 607-631. doi: 10.1080/095414400340000079

Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Arlington, VA.

Unsworth, N., & McMillan, B. D. (2013). Mind wandering and reading comprehension: Examining the roles of working memory capacity, interest, motivation, and topic experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 832-842. doi: 10.1037/a0029669

Updlike, J. (2009). Marte, regreso al planeta rojo. National Geographic España, 24(1), 2-19.

van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335-351. doi: 10.1002/acp.1418

van den Broek, P., Mouw, J. M., & Kraal, A. (2016). Individual Differences in Reading Comprehension. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Reading: Reader, Text, and Context (pp. 138-150). New York, NY: Routledge.

van den Broek, P., Risden, K. C., Fletcher, C. R., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A «landscape» view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. . In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165-187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

van den Broek, P., Rohleder, L., & Narváez, D. (1996). Causal inferences in the comprehension of literary text. In R. J. Kreuz & M. S. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

van den Broek, P., Virtue, S., Everson, M., Tzeng, Y., & Sung, Y. C. (2002). Comprehension and memory of science texts: Inferential processes and the construction of a mental representation. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension (pp. 131–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Van Dyke, J. A., Johns, C. L., & Kukona, A. (2014). Low working memory capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension. Cognition, 131(3), 373- 403. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.01.007

Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, E., & Gilabert, R. (2000). Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 107-116. doi: 10.1037/0022- 0663.92.1.107

Vidal-Abarca, E., Reyes, H., Gilabert, R., Calpe, J., Soria, E., & Graesser, A. C. (2002). ETAT: Expository Text Analysis Tool. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 93-107. doi: 10.3758/ BF03195428

Wang, S., & Gathercole, S. E. (2013). Working memory deficits in children with reading difficulties: memory span and dual task coordination. Journal of Experimental Child Csychology, 115(1), 188-197. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.11.015

Wechsler, D. (2003). WAIS III: Test de Inteligencia para Adultos. Buenos Aires, AR: Paidós.
Artículos Originales Breves.