Psychological Research (1999) 62: 7277

Springer-Verlag 1999

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Stijn De Rammelaere Els Stuyven

Andre Vandierendonck

The contribution of working memory resources

in the verication of simple mental arithmetic sums

Received: 16 April 1998 / Accepted: 20 July 1998

Abstract The present study replicated the investigations

of Lemaire, Abdi, and Fayol with some modications:
the random time interval generation (RIG) task was
used and the stimuli were created in another way. The
results provide additional evidence for the crucial role of
the central executive in the speed of solving both true
and false sums and for the role of the phonological loop
in solving false sums. However, the ndings concerning
the role of this slave system in solving true sums were
dierent. Possible explanations and limitations of these
results are discussed.

Introduction
Mental arithmetic is an important everyday skill of
many adults. Solving simple arithmetic problems (such
as 7 6 ?) is also a key component of elementary
education. Research so far has revealed two major determinants of performance: the organization of simple
arithmetic facts in long-term memory and the processing
of the information in working memory. The rst topic
has attracted many researchers and has been documented fairly extensively (e.g., Anderson, 1983). The
role of working memory in arithmetic, however, has
received much less attention, and studies have mainly
focused on dicult problems, such as 435 287 or
13 18 13 21 13. The objective of the present
study was to further explore the role of working memory
in simple arithmetic.
Most researchers agree that arithmetic facts are
stored in an interrelated network in long-term memory

E. Stuyven (&) S. De Rammelaere A. Vandierendonck

Department of Experimental Psychology,
University of Ghent,
Henri Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium;
Tel.: +32-(0)-9-264 64 36; Fax: +32-(0)-9-264 64 96;
e-mail: Els.Stuyven@rug.ac.be

(e.g., Anderson, 1983; Ashcraft & Fierman, 1982;

Campbell & Graham, 1985; Lemaire & Siegler, 1995).
The general notion is that adults and older children
possess a vocabulary of known simple arithmetic operations (such as addition, multiplication, and division)
which are organized in the form of an associative semantic network. For example, the answer to the problem 8 2 is usually known without having to follow any
form of calculation algorithm. The fact that these associative models explain fairly well four typical eects of
mental arithmetic resulted in a reasonable consensus
about the validity of these kinds of models.
A rst eect is the problem-size/diculty eect.
Simple arithmetic problems become more dicult as the
size of the operands increases (e.g., 2 3 in comparison
to 14 28; see Ashcraft & Battaglia, 1978; Groen &
Parkman, 1972). Secondly, there is the split eect.
Arithmetic problems with false answers that are close to
the correct answer are more dicult than problems with
false answers that are more discrepant (e.g., 2 3 6 in
comparison with 2 3 10; e.g., Ashcraft & Battaglia,
1978; Zbrodo & Logan, 1990). The associative-confusion/interference eect is a third observation. When a
presented false answer matches a correct answer under
another arithmetic operation, error rates are higher and
latencies are longer (e.g., 7 5 35 and 7  5 12;
e.g., Le Fevre & Kulak, 1994; Lemaire, Barrett, Fayol, &
Abdi, 1994). Finally, there is the odd-even eect. Participants take longer to reject a false answer that is even
(odd) when the correct answer is even (odd) (e.g.,
Krueger, 1986).
In contrast to these long-term memory studies,
working memory research with arithmetic problems has
focused heavily on complex problems. For example,
Hitch (1978) found that participants divide a problem
such as 547 86 into elementary stages, and that the
most important sources of errors are due to (a) forgetting partial results on calculation (such as 7 6 in our
example) and (b) forgetting initial information.
In the exploration of the role of working memory
in mental arithmetic, the working memory model of

73

Baddeley and Hitch (1974) has already proven to be a

useful framework (e.g., Lemaire, Abdi, & Fayol, 1996;
Logie & Baddeley, 1987; Logie, Gilhooly, & Wynn,
1994). According to Baddeley and Hitch, working
memory refers to the temporary storage and processing
of information in a variety of cognitive tasks (Baddeley,
1986, 1990; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). Their model gives
a multi-componential description of working memory,
with three components: the central executive, the phonological loop, and the visuo-spatial sketch pad. The
central executive is a limited-capacity system that,
among others, monitors the allocation of mental resources to the two slave systems during cognitive tasks.
Logie et al. (1994) used this framework to investigate
the role of the dierent systems of working memory in
complex arithmetic problems. They used a calculation
task in which participants had to add a series of twodigit numbers that were auditorily or visually presented
while the dierent components of working memory were
loaded. Logie et al. found that (a) the role of the phonological loop is probably to keep track of running totals and to maintain accuracy in calculation, and that (b)
the role of the central executive is most likely to perform
the calculations required for mental addition and to
produce approximately correct answers.
Lemaire et al. (1996) investigated the role of working
memory in single, simple arithmetic problems. These
researchers used the verication task (e.g., 8 4 12
True? False?) and investigated only one-digit numbers.
Although Lemaire et al. also investigated multiplication,
only their results of the single sums concern us here. The
false answers were created in two ways. First, the false
answer in a ``confusion-problem'' was the product of the
two terms (e.g., 5 3 15). The false answer in a ``nonconfusion problem,'' on the contrary, was the product
plus or minus 1 (e.g., 5 3 14 or 16), in order to
equate the splits. In addition to a control condition there
was also a condition with articulatory suppression and a
condition with random letter generation. Lemaire et al.
found greater disruption with correct equations (e.g.,
3 5 8) when (a) the phonological loop was loaded
(by means of articulatory suppression) and when (b) the
central executive was loaded (by means of random letter
generation). However, greater disruption with false
equations (e.g., 3 5 15 or 14 or 16) was only found
when concurrent random letter generation was performed. In other words, this suggests that the phonological loop is only involved in solving correct equations
but not in solving false equations. The authors concluded that the central executive is surely a critical system involved in simple mental arithmetic, for both true
and false equations.
Despite the very interesting ndings of Lemaire et al.
(1996), some important problems have remained unsolved.
(1) Is it really the case that the phonological loop is
only involved in true and not in false sums? This is
possible in view of the observation that basic arithmetic
facts about true equations; but not about false ones

are rst learned by means of oral repetition. However,

there are some methodological remarks that limit this
nding. First, Lemaire et al. (1996) used only the
product of the two terms (confusion problem) or the
product plus or minus 1 (non-confusion problem) in
order to get false answers. In such a way, however, they
investigated mainly ``extreme'' false answers (e.g.,
9 8 72 or 71 or 73; 6 7 42 or 41 or 43) that,
because of the split eect, are relatively easy to solve.
False answers closer to the correct ones are needed to be
able to generalize the observation that the phonological
loop is not involved in solving false equations. Second,
the participants of Lemaire et al. were asked to say
``the'' every two seconds. If it is the case that participants take this task very seriously and monitor the time
elapsed since the last articulation, this task can be seen
not as an automatic task, but as a task requiring central
executive resources in order to be performed accurately.
(2) The random letter generation task not only loads
the central executive, but also interferes with the phonological loop. As a result, clean-cut conclusions and
hard evidence are not easy to obtain. Vandierendonck,
De Vooght, and Van der Goten (1998) have developed
and tested a central executive task of which the load on
the slave systems is too small to have detectable eects.
In this random time interval generation (RIG) task,
participants are to tap a random (i.e., an unpredictable)
rhythm. The requirement to be random and to avoid
automaticity loads the central executive, whereas there is
neither empirical nor logical ground to assume that there
is interference with a slave systems. This task has already
been shown to aect span, supraspan, backward span
(Vandierendonck et al., 1998), stimulus-independent
thoughts (Stuyven & Van der Goten, 1995), latencies of
saccadic eye movements (Stuyven, Van der Goten,
Vandierendonck, Claeys, & Crevits 1999), and a dual
content location visual span task (Martein, Kemps,
& Vandierendonck, in press).
Method
The aim of this experiment was to explore whether the
conclusions of Lemaire et al. (1996) still hold, if some
important modications, which will become clear later,
are introduced.
Participants. Forty rst-year psychology students (13 males, 27
females) of the University of Ghent in Belgium participated for
course requirements and credit, volunteering for this particular
experiment. The mean age of the participants was 18.8 (range:
17.820.7) years. All the participants had normal or corrected-tonormal vision.
Stimuli. The stimuli were single sums presented in standard form
(i.e., a + b c). The terms a and b were always one-digit numbers.
Other stimuli than those of Lemaire et al.'s (1996) were chosen: (1)
true sums, such as 8 4 12; (2) split +1, such as 8 4 13,
and (3) split +5, such as 8 4 17. These sizes of the splits
enabled us to investigate whether the conclusions of Lemaire et al.

74
(1996) still hold when the sums are combined with the smallest split
possible (+1) and when they are combined with a bigger but not
``extreme'' split (+5). All the sums were controlled for the number
of carries: the c term was, for all three kind of sums, a number from
10 to 19 (carry 1). Because of this, no negative splits were included. If we had worked with both a positive split (e.g.,
8 4 17) and a negative split (e.g., 8 4 7), the carries would
have no longer been controlled. Just like in the study of Lemaire et
al., the numbers 0 and 1 were omitted because there is evidence that
these problems (e.g., x + 0 or x + 1) are not solved by retrieving
the solution directly from memory but instead by retrieving rules
(e.g., x + 0 x) that guide their solution (see Ashcraft, 1982;
Baroody, 1985).
The sums were further controlled as follows: (1) half of the
correct results of the sums were even, the other half were odd; (2)
for half of the sums, the rst number was bigger than the second
(a > b), for the other half the inverse was true (a < b), and (3) the
c term was never the product of a b, in other words, the associative-confusion/interference eect could not play a role in the
verication of the sums.
In this way, 24 combinations of the form a + b were formed. In
one condition, these were once presented with a split of +1, once
with a split of +5, and twice with the correct solution. As a result,
every series consisted of 96 (4 24) trials, namely 48 (2 24) true
and 48 (2 24) false single sums. Before the presentation of each
series, the sequence of all sums was randomized. Only in less than
0.5% of the trials was the sum presented the same as the one before.
Procedure and design. The stimuli were presented horizontally in
the center of a computer screen, in yellow with a black background.
The equations remained on until the participant responded, unless
there was still no response after 10 s. The participants were instructed to solve the sums as accurately and as fast as possible by
pressing the appropriate key. The left and the right button of the
mouse were designated as true and false. For half of the participants, the left button was designated as true, and for the other half,
it was designated as false. All participants were instructed to use
their forenger and their middle nger of the right hand to press
these keys. The inter-trial interval was 1 s.
Each participant participated under every condition, in contrast
to Lemaire et al. (1996), where the participants participated under
only one condition. There were four conditions: control, articulatory suppression, random letter generation, and random time interval generation.
In the control (CON) condition the participants solved the sums
without a secondary task. The articulatory suppression (AS) condition required the participants to say ``the'' (``de'' in Dutch) aloud
and quickly while they were solving the sums. This secondary task
was meant to load the phonological loop, and only the phonological loop. In contrast of Lemaire et al. (1996), the participants
did not say ``the'' every 2 s, but did so continuously and without
stopping. This modication was introduced because of the reason
mentioned before.
In the random letter generation (RLG) condition, the participants were required to say one random letter of the alphabet at a
rate of one letter per second while they were solving the sums. The
rate was indicated by a metronome that continued throughout the
series. The participants were instructed to avoid stereotypical sequences (e.g., ``a-b-c-d'' or ``o-p-q-r'') or spelling out words (e.g.,
``c-a-t''). Thus, the standard version of RLG was used in this study,
in contrast to the investigation of Lemaire et al. (1996), where a
modied version was used, namely one random letter of the series
``a-b-c-d-e-f'' at a rate of one per two seconds. Despite the already
mentioned drawback, this secondary task was introduced because
(a) the results of this condition should serve as a baseline for the
fourth condition, (b) it is one of the most frequently used tasks to
load the central executive, and (c) it would maintain the compatibility with the study of Lemaire et al.
The random time interval generation task (Vandierendonck et
al., 1998) was used as a fourth condition; the participants were
asked to tap an unpredictable rhythm on the zero key of the
numeric keypad while they were solving the sums. They were

instructed to use their left forenger and were told that the rhythm
had to be as random and unpredictable as possible. This task was
meant to load the central executive and not to interfere with one of
the slave systems, as in the previous secondary task. In order to
obtain a measure of randomness, the tap sequences of the participants were registered.
Four conditions imply 24 possible sequences of these conditions
(4! 24). The rst 24 participants each participated in one of these
sequences. The sequences for the next 16 participants were selected
at random, but with the restriction that no sequence was executed
by more than two participants. As a result, each sequence was
executed by (approximately) the same number of participants, and
possible eects of learning or boredom were eliminated. The participants were permitted a 3-min rest period between the conditions.
At the start of the experiment, the participants solved 16 random practice trials (8 true sums, 4 split 1, 4 split 5) in order to
familiarize themselves with the apparatus, the procedure, the
stimulus display, and the response keys. After each practice trial,
the participants received feedback: according to the answer given,
the text ``correct answer'' or ``wrong answer'' was given at the
bottom of the screen for 1 s. After these practice trials, no more
feedback was given, and the already mentioned sequence of conditions was followed. Each series started with a xation point (``!'')
in the middle of the screen that remained for 500 ms. In the
experimental conditions, the participants were rst required to
practise the concurrent task until they felt comfortable with it
and showed no apparent problems. They were told that is was
important not to stop performing the secondary task while they
were solving the sums. If they stopped, which happened only once,
this condition was rerun all over. The participants were tested
individually in a quiet room. Each experimental session lasted
approximately 2535 min.
A 4 (Load: CON, AS, RLG, RIG) 3 (Sum: true, split +1,
split +5) within-participants design was used. This design was
preferred to a between-participants design in order to eliminate
dierences in arithmetic skills between the participants. Thus, every
participant solved three kinds of sums under each condition. As a
result, all participants solved exactly 400 sums [16 practice trials + (4 96)] experimental trials.

Results
The data were analyzed by means of a multivariate
analysis with contrasts between the 12 dependent variables: the mean latencies per participant under the
combinations of condition and kind of sum, or the
proportion of correct responses per participant under
the combinations of condition and kind of sum. This
analysis conforms to the suggestions of McCall and
Appelbaum (1973) for a correct analysis of repeatedmeasures designs.
Randomness analyses
Every sequence of random taps1 was analyzed by means
of the method described by Vandierendonck et al. (1998)
and more in detail in Vandierendonck (1998) in order to
1

A random analysis of the random letter generation task was not

possible because the most straight-forward statistic is the one described by Evans (1978). However, this statistics requires exactly
262 676 observations. The trial block did not last long enough to
produce that many digits. However, there is no reason to assume
that the task was not performed accurately.

75

nd out whether participants complied with task instructions. In essence, random time intervals can be
converted into a series of binary events. To that end, the
complete time course is subdivided into a sequence of
xed intervals, each of which either contains an event (a
keypress) or does not. By means of appropriate statistics, the degree of statistical independence and the tendency to alternate (or to perseverate, if such arose) can
be estimated. Six participants deviated from randomness. The data analyses reported below were performed,
with and without these six participants. As there were no
dierences in the pattern of results, the analyses on the
complete data are reported here. By means of these
analyses, a median-split was also introduced: the participants were divided into a group with the 20 most
random sequences and a group with the 20 least random
sequences. The latencies and the proportions of correct
answers of these two groups were analyzed and compared. As there were no dierences in the pattern of
results between the two groups, this analysis will not be
reported.
Latencies
The trials in which the participants made errors were
dropped from the analysis. The mean latencies and their
standard deviations are presented in Table 1. The main
eect of condition was signicant, F(3,37) 89.44,
p < .001, as was the main eect of kind of sum,
F(2,38) 41.61, p < .001, but their interaction was
not: F(6,34) 1.64, p > .15. In contrast to the control
condition, AS had no eect, F(1,39) 1.38, p > .20, but
RLG and RIG did have an eect: F(1,39) 206.07,
p < .001 and F(1,39) 34.21, p < .001, respectively.
Also, the eect of RIG was signicantly dierent from
AS, F(1,39) 41.65, p < .001, and from RLG,
F(1,39) 195.77, p < .001.
Across all conditions, there was a signicant split
eect, i.e., the sum with split 5 (weighted M=1628
ms) were solved signicantly faster than sums with split
=1 (weighted M=1833 ms): F(1,39) 68.67, p < .001.
The latencies of true sums (weighted M 1588 ms) were
signicantly shorter than the latencies of sums with
split 1, F(1,39) 66.95, p < .001, but did not dier
Table 1 Mean latencies (in ms) per condition and per kind of
sum.a Standard deviations are given between parentheses.
AS articulatory suppression; RLG random letter generation;
RIG random time interval generation

True
Split 1
Split 5
a

Control

AS

RLG

RIG

1203
(315)
1455
(349)
1183
(281)

1260
(363)
1481
(422)
1239
(356)

2552a
(695)
2778a
(787)
2670a
(726)

1415a
(396)
1659a
(412)
1466a
(426)

signicant in comparison to control on p < :001

Table 2 Mean proportions correct responses per condition and per

kind of sum.a Standard deviations are given between parentheses.
AS articulatory suppression; RLG random letter generation;
RIG random time interval generation
Control
True
Split 1
Split 5
a

0.94
(0.05)
0.87
(0.08)
0.98
(0.03)

AS

RLG
a

0.92
(0.06)
0.87
(0.10)
0.97
(0.03)

0.86
(0.11)
0.83a
(0.11)
0.93a
(0.07)

RIG
0.93
(0.06)
0.86
(0.09)
0.95a
(0.08)

signicant in comparison to control on p < .05

signicantly from sums with a split of 5, F(1,39) 1.69,

p > .20.
Accuracy
The mean proportions of correct answers and their
standard deviations are presented in Table 2. As can be
seen, accuracy was very high. Consequently, these data
are not very sensitive, and dierences in accuracy must
be interpreted with caution.
The main eect of condition was signicant,
F(3,37) 15.29, p < .001, as was the main eect of the
kind of sum, F(2,38) 41.33, p < .001, but their interaction was not: F(6,34) 1.48, p > .20. Across all
trials, AS had no eect, F(1,39) 2.15, p > .15; on the
other hand, RIG and RLG did have an eect:
F(1,39) 4.07, p .05, and F(1,39) 46.85, p < .001,
respectively. Also, the eect of RIG was signicantly
dierent from RLG, F(1,39) 16.62, p < .001, but did
not dier signicantly from AS, F(1,39) 1.58, p > .20.
Across all conditions, there was a signicant split
eect, i.e., the sums with split 5 (M=0.96) were
solved signicantly better than sums with split 1
(M=0.86): F(1,39) 81.81, p < .001. True sums
(M=0.91) were solved signicantly worse than sums
with split 5, F(1,39) 29.04, p < .001, and signicantly better than sums with a split of 1,
F(1,39) 24.75, p < .001.
Correlation between latencies and accuracy
In order to test for a possible trade-o between latencies
and accuracy, correlations between the two dependent
measures were calculated for each condition. None of
them was signicant (CON: .15; AS: .17; RLG: .14; and
RIG .01).

Discussion
The aim of the present study was to explore whether the
conclusions of Lemaire et al. (1996) still hold if some
important modications are introduced. Other stimuli

76

(i.e., other false answers) were used, a new secondary

task, the random time interval generation task (Vandierendonck et al., 1998), was applied, and standard
implementations for the other secondary tasks, namely
articulatory suppression and random letter generation,
were used.
The rst question concerned the role of the phonological loop in both true and false sums. We found that
articulatory suppression had no eect and the interaction of condition by type of sum was not signicant,
suggesting that the secondary tasks did not play a different role for the three kinds of sums. This implies that
in this experiment the phonological loop was not involved in true nor false sums. For the latter sums, the
ndings of Lemaire et al. (1996) was replicated in this
study, but this time with other false answers. The phonological loop is apparently not involved in solving
``extreme'' false sums (Lemaire et al., 1996), nor in false
sums with splits of 1 and 5. In other words, this study
provides additional empirical evidence for the conclusion that the phonological loop is not involved in solving
false sums. However, the ndings concerning the true
sums were dierent; in this experiment we found that a
load on the phonological loop had no eect on the latencies of true sums, in contrast to the ndings of Lemaire et al. (1996).
How can such apparently contradictory results be
explained? One possible explanation is the dierence in
the selected stimuli: in this study, the sums were controlled for the number of carries. As a result, many
possible one-digit sums were not studied. It is not impossible that the phonological loop plays a dierent role
for these sums. However, a second possible explanation
sounds more plausible: the articulatory suppression, as
used in the study of Lemaire et al. (1996), probably also
interfered with the central executive, because the participants were instructed to say ``the'' at a rate of exactly
one every 2 seconds. There is some recent emperical
evidence for this suggestion: Stuyven et al. (1999) found
a dierent eect of xed tapping on saccadic eye
movements under strict and under lenient instructions.
In this experiment, xed tapping was a secondary task
which required participants to tap a button every second
and which, just like articulatory suppression, does not
call on resources of the central executive. However,
when strict instructions were given (``Tap at a rate of
exactly one per second''), this secondary task was found
to require central executive resources. It has to be emphasized that this possible explanation is only a suggestion. Future investigations will be needed to clarify
the role of the phonological loop in solving true sums.
The second question concerned the contribution of
the random time interval generation task in the eld of
mental arithmetic. If we assume that the central executive indeed plays a crucial role in the latencies of all
kinds of sums, as Lemaire et al. (1996) found, then an
analogous eect of this secondary task which claims to
load only the central executive is expected. This was
exactly what we found for the three kinds of sums. Thus,

this study provides additional empirical evidence for the

crucial role of the central executive in the latencies of all
kinds of sums. These ndings not only replicate but also
extend the results of Lemaire et al. (1996). First, these
eects were found by means of a secondary task that
loads only the central executive and does not interfere
with one of the slave systems. Second, the crucial role
here was also demonstrated with additional false answers, namely splits of 1 and 5. It is also important to
mention that RIG had more subtle and sensitive eects
in comparison to random letter generation, where latencies were almost always doubled. The RIG task
added between 200 and 250 ms, but nevertheless reached
convincing signicance (for both latencies and accuracy). In short, this study demonstrates the usefulness of
the RIG task in this eld of research.
A last remarkable nding of this study is that true
sums were not solved signicantly faster than sums with
a split of 5 (in fact, accuracy of true sums was worse
than the accuracy of sums with a split of 5 ). This goes
against the general notion that ``latencies for true sums
are typically shorter than latencies for any false problems because true problems involve stronger operandcorrect answer associations'' (Lemaire et al., 1996).
Future studies should investigate the robustness of this
nding and, if replicated, models of arithmetic representation in long-term memory will have to take it into
account.
The most important limitations of this study are
twofold. First, not all possible single sums were studied.
Consequently, it was not possible to partition the sums
into ``easy'' and ``dicult'' sums, because all the sums
had a carry of ``1.'' However, as the study of Lemaire et
al. (1996) demonstrates, such a distinction can reveal
interesting eects. Second, there were no single-task
control conditions, so it was not possible to investigate
possible trade-o eects between primary and secondary
task performance. Nevertheless, as pointed out in this
discussion, we believe that this study contributes a few
interesting ndings to this eld of research.
Acknowledgements The research reported in this article was supported by a Ph.D. Grant to Els Stuyven (BOF No. 011D0896) and
the Belgian program on ``Inter-university Poles of Attraction''
Grant No. P4/9 (19972001) from the Department of Science
Policy to Andre Vandierendonck.
We are indebted to Eva Kemps for useful remarks, Jacky Lilly
for checking and improving the English, and Antoine Tavernier for
technical support.

References
Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 261
295.
Ashcraft, M. H. (1982). The development of mental arithmetic: A
chronometric approach. Developmental Review, 3, 213236.
Ashcraft, M. H., & Battaglia, J. (1978). Cognitive arithmetic: Evidence for retrieval and decision processes in mental addition.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and
Memory, 4, 527538.

77
Ashcraft, M. H., & Fierman, B. A. (1982). Mental addition in
third, fourth, and sixth graders. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 3, 216234.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice.
Hove: Erlbaum.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G.
Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (Vol.
6). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baroody, A. J. (1985). Mastery of the basic number combinations:
Internalization of relationships or facts? Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 16, 8398.
Campbell, J. I. D., & Graham, D. J. (1985). Mental multiplication
skill: Structure, process, and acquisition. Canadian Journal of
Psychology, 39, 338366.
Evans, F. J. (1978). Monitoring attention deployment by random
number generation: An index to measure subjective randomness. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12, 3538.
Groen, G. J., & Parkman, J. M. (1972). A chronometric analysis of
simple addition. Psychological Review, 79, 329343.
Hitch, G. J. (1978). The role of short-term working memory in
mental arithmetic. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 302323.
Krueger, L. E. (1986). Why 2 2 5 looks so wrong: On the oddeven rule in product verication. Memory & Cognition, 14, 141
149.
LeFevre, J., & Kulak, A. G. (1994). Individual dierences in the
obligatory activation of addition facts. Memory & Cognition,
22, 188200.
Lemaire, P., & Siegler, R. S. (1995). Four aspects of strategic
change: Contribution to children's learning multiplication.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 8397.
Lemaire, P., Barrett, S. E., Fayol, M., & Abdi, H. (1994). Automatic activation of addition and multiplication facts in ele-

mentary school children. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 57, 224258.
Lemaire, P., Abdi, H., & Fayol, M. (1996). The role of working
memory resources in simple cognitive arithmetic. European
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 8, 73103.
Logie, R. H., & Baddeley, A. D. (1987). Cognitive processes in
counting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 2, 310326.
Logie, R. H., Gilhooly, K. J., & Wynn, V. (1994). Counting on
working memory in arithmetic problem solving. Memory and
Cognition, 22, 395410.
Martein, R., Kemps, E., & Vandierendonck, A. (in press). The
role of working memory in a double span task. Psychologica
Belgica.
McCall, R. B., & Appelbaum, M. I. (1973). Bias in the analysis of
repeated measure designs: Some alternative approaches. Child
Development, 44, 401415.
Stuyven, E., & Van der Goten, K. (1995). Stimulus independent
thoughts and working memory: The role of the central executive, Psychologica Belgica, 35, 241251.
Stuyven, E., Van der Goten, K., Vandierendonck, A., Claeys, K. &
Crevits, L. (1999). The eect of cognitive load on saccadic eye
movements. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Vandierendonck, A. (1998). Bias and processing capacity in generation of random time intervals. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Vandierendonck, A., De Vooght, G., & Van der Goten, K. (1998).
Does random time interval generation interfere with working
memory executive functions? European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology 10, 389412
Zbrodo, N. J., & Logan, G. D. (1990). On the relation between
production and verication tasks in the psychology of simple
arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 16, 8397.