1

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2022), 92, 1–18

© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Psychology
published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Mapping components of verbal and visuospatial

working memory to mathematical topics in
seven- to fifteen-year-olds
Rebecca Gordon*, Danila Santana De Morais, Emily Whitelock and
Arzoo Mukarram
UCL Institute of Education, University College London, UK
Background. Developmental research provides considerable evidence of a strong
relationship between verbal and visuospatial working memory (WM) and mathematics
ability across age groups. However, little is known about how components of WM (i.e.,
short-term storage, processing speed, the central executive) might relate to mathematics
sub-categories and how these change as children develop.
Aims. This study aimed to identify developmental changes in relationships between
components of verbal and visuospatial WM and specific mathematics abilities.
Sample. Children (n = 117) were recruited from four UK schools across three age
groups (7–8 years; 9–10 years; and 14–15 years).
Methods. Children’s verbal and visuospatial short-term storage, processing speed, and
central executive abilities were assessed. Age-based changes in the contributions from
these abilities to performance on mathematics sub-categories were examined.
Results. When WM was examined both as an amalgamation of its component parts, and
individually, relationships with mathematics were more evident in younger children
compared to the middle and older age groups. However, when unique variance was
examined for each WM predictor (controlling for the other components), many of those
relationships disappeared. Relationships with processing speed and the central executive
were found to be more evident in the older age groups.
Conclusions. The WM-mathematics relationship changes dependent on age and
mathematical sub-component. Overlap in individual WM abilities in younger children,
compared to reliance on the central executive and processing speed in older children,
suggests a set of fluid resources important in mathematics learning in younger children but
separating out as children grow older.

Working memory (WM) is commonly defined as a limited capacity system which holds
information in mind for a known purpose, while concurrently processing other
information. Importantly, it is relied on when a situation is novel (Shallice & Burgess,
1996), for example when learning new information (Cowan, 2014). Developmental

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
*Correspondence should be addressed to Rebecca Gordon, Department of Psychology and Human Development, UCL Institute of
Education, University College London, 25 Woburn Square, Bloomsbury WC1H 0HT, London, UK (email: rebecca.gor-
don@ucl.ac.uk).

DOI:10.1111/bjep.12440
2 Rebecca Gordon et al.

research provides evidence for a link between WM and mathematical learning (Allen,
Giofre, Higgins, & Adams, 2020; Allen, Higgins, & Adams, 2019; Cragg, Keeble,
Richardson, Roome, & Gilmore, 2017; Friso-van den Bos, Van der Ven, Kroesbergen, &
Van Luit, 2013; Geary, 2011; Lee & Bull, 2016; Toll, Van der Ven, Kroesbergen, & Van Luit,
2011; Van der Ven, van der Maas, Straatemeier, & Jansen, 2013).
Although WM is a broad construct with many theoretical explanations (see Barrouillet,
Bernardin, & Camos, 2004; Barrouillet & Camos, 2007; Cowan, 1999; Cowan et al., 2005
for attention-based models), Baddeley and Hitch (1974; Baddeley, 1996, 2000) posited the
enduring and influential multicomponent WM model. This consists of two domain-
specific short-term stores for verbal and visuospatial information and a domain-general
central executive, responsible for allocating limited attentional resources to processing
and storage. The multi-component nature of this model has led to investigation of its sub-
components and evidence has been found for the differing roles of verbal WM (Allen et al.,
2019, 2020; De Smedt et al., 2009; Meyer, Salimpoor, Wu, Geary, & Menon, 2010; Toll
et al., 2011), visuospatial WM (Allen et al., 2020; De Smedt et al., 2009; Fanari, Meloni, &
Massidda, 2019; Geary, 2011; Imbo & LeFevre, 2010; Meyer et al., 2010; Toll et al., 2011;
Van der Ven et al., 2013), and the central executive (De Smedt et al., 2009; Henry &
MacLean, 2003; Holmes & Adams, 2006; Meyer et al., 2010; Swanson, 2006; Toll et al.,
2011) in mathematics ability.
These studies commonly measure WM using complex span tasks, designed to simulate
the requirement to process and temporarily store information concurrently. For example,
Counting Span (Case, Kurland, & Goldberg, 1982) requires participants to count an array
of shapes (processing) and remember the number of shapes presented (storage). The
maximum number of items consistently correctly recalled in serial order denotes the
participant’s span score, which reliably indexes WM capacity (Conway et al., 2005). Such
tasks suggest the possible role of processing speed in WM, as Case et al. (1982) found
children’s processing time predicted their storage capacity. They interpreted this as
demonstrating that increases in processing speed release cognitive resources for
information storage and thus explain developmental increases in WM capacity (i.e., the
resource-sharing hypothesis). This was challenged by Towse and Hitch (1995; Towse,
Hitch, & Hutton, 1998) who manipulated both complexity and time in the processing task
and found that increased processing time, but not complexity, resulted in lower span
scores. They proposed a task-switching account positing that time-based forgetting (i.e.,
time spent processing and not maintaining information) determines WM capacity. These
studies are important as they argue for a direct role of processing speed in WM, and further
research has demonstrated how faster processing times might explain relationships with
mathematics (Formoso et al., 2018; Geary, 2011; Gordon, Smith-Spark, Newton, & Henry,
2020; Li & Geary, 2013).
Some researchers have further examined the sub-components of WM using complex
span tasks to better understand the WM-mathematics relationship. Bayliss, Jarrold, Gunn,
and Baddeley (2003) found that domain-general processing speed and domain-specific
storage related to mathematical ability in 7- and 8-year-olds. Similarly, Gordon et al. (2020)
examined time and accuracy in processing and storage in 7- to 8-year-olds using three
complex span tasks measuring visuospatial, verbal, and numerical WM. They found that
only processing speed and storage predicted general mathematics ability as defined by the
UK curriculum. Moreover, only processing speed in the numerical WM task explained
variance in mathematics when all performance indices from all WM tasks were
considered.
 Working memory and maths in 7- to 15-year-olds 3

However, mathematics is not a single ability but one that encompasses various topics
including arithmetic, fractions, algebra, measurement, geometry, and handling data
(Department for Education, 2014). Therefore, it is problematic to conflate all topics into a
single measure and then claim that WM, and its components, are important. Considering
the aforementioned evidence that basic arithmetic can involve both verbal and
visuospatial WM (Allen et al., 2019), the central executive (De Smedt et al., 2009), and
processing speed (Gordon et al., 2020), it is important to further examine how these
different aspects of WM map onto the distinct mathematics topics.
The WM-mathematics relationship grows in complexity when considering the
influence of age on how these constructs might inter-relate. Studies have found a
stronger reliance on visuospatial WM during mathematics learning in younger children,
with a move to verbal WM in older children (De Smedt et al., 2009; Van der Ven et al., 2013;
Van de Weijer-Bergsma et al., 2015). One explanation is that, as children develop, they
create memories of mathematics facts which can be verbally recalled to contribute to
completing mathematical tasks (De Smedt et al., 2009). However, Van der Ven et al.
(2013) found that the relationship between visuospatial WM and elementary mathematics
tasks such as addition and subtraction decreased with age but not the relationship with the
more complex operations of multiplication and division. Importantly, relationships
between visuospatial WM and different mathematics domains were stronger at the age
when the new material was introduced into the curriculum.
Furthermore, there is evidence that the importance of WM, regardless of domain,
reduces when mathematical procedures become more familiar (Geary, Hoard, Byrd-
Craven, & DeSoto, 2004; Imbo & Vandierendonck, 2007). Generally, when a task is not
novel, there is less reliance on effortful attentional abilities and more reliance on automatic
behaviours (Norman & Shallice, 1986; Shallice & Burgess, 1996). Therefore, a reduction in
the novelty of mathematical procedures as children grow older, rather than age per se,
may reduce reliance on WM (Tronsky, 2005). As the central executive is viewed as
responsible for allocating limited attentional resources in WM, such findings imply a shift
in the role of this ability in mathematics. This is at odds with research that suggests
increases in mathematical ability as children grow older are related to increases in
executive abilities (Bull & Scerif, 2001), but is supported by recent evidence that
inhibition is less important in mathematics as children grow older and other factors, such
as strategy use, come into play (Avgerinou & Tolmie, 2020).
To understand which cognitive abilities are relied upon in mathematical learning a
comprehensive developmental investigation of the different aspects of WM and how they
relate to each mathematical topic is required. The aim of the current study was to assess
verbal short-term storage (STS), visuospatial STS, processing speed, and the central
executive and their separate contributions to performance on different mathematics
topics. How these relationships change as children are exposed to novel and increasingly
complex mathematical concepts and procedures through primary and secondary school
was then examined. Specifically, three age groups were used to identify where
developmental shifts occur. 7- to 8-year-olds were selected as this represents a
developmental stage where more sophisticated WM abilities, which correlate with
educational outcomes, begin to emerge (Gathercole, Pickering, Ambridge, & Wearing,
2004). By the age of 9–10 years, WM is more firmly identified as a cognitive construct
separate from general cognitive abilities and learning processes (Brydges, Fox, Reid, &
Anderson, 2014; Thompson et al., 2019). At 14–15 years of age, the relationship between
WM and mathematics is firmly established (Gathercole et al., 2004). Therefore, these age
4 Rebecca Gordon et al.

groups were used to identify these particular developmental shifts in relation to

components of WM and subsequent links with mathematics ability.
The aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that different components of
WM explain performance in individual mathematical topics and that these relationships
change as children move through primary school to secondary school. Specifically, the
predictions were as follows:
1. Visuospatial STS predicts mathematical ability in younger children (7–8 years), but
verbal STS predicts this ability in older children (14–15 years).
2. The central executive predicts ability in younger children but this reliance reduces in
older children as procedures become automated.
3. Processing speed predicts mathematics ability in older children when there is a
requirement to hold information in STS and faster processing prevents decay. No
specific hypotheses were identified for particular mathematics topics given the lack
of clear evidence from past research.

Method
Participants
One hundred and seventeen children (70 girls) were recruited from three primary schools
and one secondary school as follows: Group A: 32 (19 girls) 7- to 8-year-olds; Group B: 56
(28 girls) 9-to 10-year-olds; and Group C: 29 (23 girls) 14- to 15-year-olds. No children had
any known documented neurodevelopmental disorders or learning difficulties.

Procedure
Participants were tested over a three-week period in school during regular hours. A total of
seven tasks were completed. All tasks were administered individually, except the
mathematics assessment, which was administered in a group session. These sessions were
run for each age group in each school.

Measures
Reading and Non-verbal Reasoning were assessed to confirm that the groups were
representative of a typical developmental trajectory.

Reading ability
Reading was assessed using the Word Reading test from the British Ability Scales 3rd
edition (BAS-III, Elliot & Smith, 2011). The BAS III Word Reading test is suitable for
children aged 3–17 years of age. It has good internal consistency (a = .79–.91) and test–
retest reliability (r = .64). Participants were asked to read each word aloud from a list of 90
words grouped in blocks of 10, with increasing difficulty across blocks. One point was
awarded for each word pronounced correctly. Testing was stopped after eight incorrect
responses in a block.
 Working memory and maths in 7- to 15-year-olds 5

Non-verbal reasoning
Non-verbal reasoning (NVR) was measured using the matrices task from the BAS-III, for the
five to 17 years age range. There were five practice and 33 test trials. In each trial, a matrix
of nine cells containing black and white geometric designs was presented to each child.
For each matrix, one of the nine cells was empty, denoting an incomplete pattern. The
child was asked to select, from six options, the correct component which would complete
the pattern. Level of complexity increased across trials, with it becoming increasingly
difficult to identify which piece would complete the pattern. One mark was given for each
correct answer, which denoted the NVR score.

Processing speed
Processing speed was assessed using the Speed of Processing Information sub-test from
the BAS III. Group A (7- to 8-year-olds): Children were shown a series of circles in rows.
Each of the circles was filled with a number of smaller squares. The number of squares in
each circle never exceeded four. For each row, they were asked to mark the circle with the
greatest number of squares. Group B (9- to 10-year-olds): Children were shown a series of
two-digit numbers in rows. They were asked to mark the highest numerical digit in each
row. Group C (14- to 15-year-olds): Children were shown a series of three-digit numbers in
rows and were asked to mark the highest numerical digit per row. For all groups, there
were two practice trials and six assessment trials. Participants were awarded one mark for
each correct answer (raw score). The possible scores for all tasks ranged from 0 to 36. The
task was timed from the moment the child marked the first circle in the first row until the
moment the child marked a circle in the last row. A score between zero to six was awarded
based on six time intervals. If a child made more than three errors on a single trial, they
were scored zero for that trial, regardless of their time. Total score was calculated by
adding the scores for all six trials together. A higher score indicated a faster processing
speed.

Verbal STS
Verbal STS was measured using the Working Memory Test Battery for Children (WMTB-C)
(Gathercole & Pickering, 2001) digit span task. A sequence of random, non-repetitive
digits was read at a rate of one digit per second. The participant was then asked to recall
the list in serial order. There were seven blocks of trials with six trials per block. Trials
initially included two numbers and increased by one number in each block until the
participant was unable to recall four correct trials in a block. No score was awarded for a
block after three errors. One point was awarded for each correct trial when four or more
trials were correctly recalled. The sum of scores denoted the total score.

Visuospatial STS
Spatial STS was measured using the WMTB-C block recall task. For the block recall task, the
participant was shown a plastic tray consisting of an array of nine fixed, three-dimensional
cubes. The researcher pointed to a random and non-repetitive sequence of cubes
(locations) at a rate of one per second. The participant was required to repeat the
sequence in correct serial order. There were seven blocks of trials with six trials per block.
Trials initially included two locations and increased by one location in each block until the
participant was unable to recall four correct trials in a block. No score was awarded for a
6 Rebecca Gordon et al.

block after three errors. One point was awarded for each correct trial when four or more
trials were correctly recalled. The sum of scores denoted the total score.

Central executive
The backward digit span task from the WMTB-C was used to measure the Central
Executive. This simple task was used to reduce possible cognitive ‘noise’ that can be a
limitation of executive function tasks (see Denckla, 1994; Rabbitt, 1997). Administration
was similar to that for digit span except the child was asked to recall the numbers in
reverse serial order. Failure points and scoring protocols were as per digit span.

Mathematics
Mathematics performance was assessed using the Access Mathematics Test (AMT)
(McCarty, 2008). This standardized test is based on the UK national curriculum for
mathematics. Test 1 (Form A) was used to assess Groups A and B (aged 7–10 years) and
Test 2 (Form B) was used to assess Group C (aged 14–15 years). Both tests accessed seven
different mathematics domains (Using and Applying Mathematics, Counting and
Understanding Number, Knowing and Using Number Facts/Algebra, Calculating,
Understanding Shape, Measuring, and Handling data). Scores were calculated for each
sub-topic and total mathematics.

Results
Some measures showed skewness and kurtosis. Therefore, the values were converted to z-
scores to identify any which were 2.5 standard deviations from the mean. Values that
were 2.5 standard deviations from the mean were winsorized and the corresponding
true values were substituted with the closest upper or lower value (within 2.5 standard
deviation). This resulted in the alteration of one case each for Understanding Shape,
Verbal STS, Central Executive and NVR, two cases each for Understanding and Applying
Mathematics and Measuring, three cases for visuospatial STS, and four cases for Reading.
In total, these cases represented between 0.8% and 3.4% of the data set for any single
variable. For similar methodology, see Bayliss et al. (2003), Bayliss, Jarrold, Baddeley,
Gunn, and Leigh (2005).
Non-verbal reasoning and reading ability were used to identify whether the groups
represented age-typical abilities. These are reported in Table 1. All children performed
within the ability range for their age. To examine whether the three age groups
represented a developmentally typical trajectory, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted for reading and NVR. Significant increases in ability between age groups were
found for Reading, F (2, 114) = 47.36, p < .0001. Post-hoc comparisons showed a
significant increase in mean scores from Group A to Group B (M = 18.35, SE = 3.26,

Table 1. Mean (standard deviation) for age, non-verbal reasoning, and reading ability for each age group

Age in years Non-verbal reasoning Reading

Group A 8.11 (0.43) 11.62 (6.00) 49.43 (20.44)

Group B 10.03 (0.52) 14.20 (5.00) 67.79 (14.18)
Group C 14.61 (0.48) 22.79 (3.87) 86.14 (4.92)
 Working memory and maths in 7- to 15-year-olds 7

p < .0001), Group A to Group C (M = 36.70, SE = 3.77, p < .0001), and Group B to
Group C (M = 18.35, SE = 3.37, p < .001). Significant increases in ability were also found
for NVR, F (2, 114) 41.47, p < .0001. Post-hoc comparisons showed significantly higher
scores from Group A to Group C (M = 11.17, SE = 1.30, p < .0001) and Group B to Group
C (M = 8.60, SE = 1.16, p < .0001). There was no significant increase in NVR ability from
Group A to Group B (p = .07).
The mean and standard deviation for each WM measure is shown in Table 2. To assess
increases in WM ability from Group A to Group B to Group C, ANOVA was conducted for
each of the WM measures. Significant increases in ability between age groups were found
for visuospatial STS, F (2, 114) = 10.02, p < .0001; the central executive, F (2,
114) = 19.71, p < .0001; and processing speed, F (2, 114) = 14.67, p < .0001. There
were no significant differences in mean scores in verbal STS between the three Groups, F
(2, 114) = .879, p = .418.
Post-hoc analysis showed significant increases in visuospatial STS from Group A to
Group B (M = 3.17, SE = 1.09, p < .05) and from Group A to Group C (M = 5.62,
SE = 1.34, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in the mean scores between
Group B and Group C (p = .097). For the central executive measure, there was a
significant increase in ability from Group A to Group B (M = 3.44, SE = .90, p < .01), from
Group A to Group C (M = 6.51, SE = 1.04, p < .0001), and from Group B to Group C
(M = 3.07, SE = .93, p < .01). There was a significant increase in processing speed from
Group A to Group C (M = 6.92, SE = 1.89, p < .01) and from Group B to Group C
(M = 9.09, SE = 1.69, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in the mean scores
between Group A and Group B (p = .56).
The means and standard deviations for the mathematics scores are reported in Table 3.
To identify any significant increases in mathematics ability across age groups, an ANOVA
was conducted for the overall mathematics score. There were significant increases in
ability from Group A to Group B (M = 14.81, SE = 2.02, p < .0001) and Group A to Group
C (M = 10.35, SE = 2.34, p < .0001) and a modest but non-significant decline from Group
B to Group C (p = .10). However, these scores are based on different age-appropriate
measures and, as such, an increase from Group B to Group C was not necessarily
expected. This also further supports the subsequent analysis of abilities within, as
opposed to across, the age groups.
Relationships between the WM measures and mathematics achievement were
conducted for each group. Significant values are shown in Table 4. Non-significant
relationships are replaced with a hyphen for ease of interpretation. Several relationships
between verbal STS and mathematics abilities were evident in Group A and Group B, but
these disappeared for the oldest age group. Visuospatial STS was linked to all mathematics
scores in Group A, but there were no relationships with visuospatial STS in the two older
age groups. Correlations between the central executive and mathematics abilities were

Table 2. Mean (standard deviation) for verbal short-term store, visuospatial short-term store; central
executive and processing speed for each age group

Verbal STS Visuospatial STS Central Executive Processing Speed

Group A 32.03 (6.05) 24.34 (5.97) 11.59 (3.95) 19.94 (8.06)

Group B 33.77 (6.59) 27.52 (4.61) 15.04 (4.17) 17.77 (7.38)
Group C 34.00 (7.14) 29.97 (4.26) 18.10 (3.94) 26.86 (6.57)
STS = short-term storage.
 8
Rebecca Gordon et al.

Table 3. Mean (standard deviation) for all mathematics measures for each age group

Total
Mathematics UA CN NF CA SH ME HD

Group A 14.03 (9.33) 2.50 (1.52) 3.06 (1.97) 2.56 (1.72) 1.59 (1.32) 1.41 (1.24) 1.03 (1.36) 1.78 (1.74)
Group B 28.84 (9.38) 4.04 (1.73) 6.82 (2.61) 4.82 (1.72) 3.86 (1.71) 2.36 (1.30) 3.25 (1.64) 3.57 (1.62
Group C 24.38 (8.31) 2.38 (1.18) 5.34 (1.93) 4.55 (1.66) 4.21 (1.80) 3.00 (1.65) 1.24 (1.09) 3.66 (1.37)
UA = Using and Applying Mathematics; CN = Counting and Understanding Number; NF = Knowing and Using Number Facts/Algebra; CA = Calculating;
SH = Understanding Shape; ME = Measuring; HD = Handling Data
Table 4. Correlation between all WM measures and mathematical total and component scores

Total Mathematics UA CN NF CA SH ME HD

Group A
Verbal STS .503** .401* .504** – – .402* .385* .590**
Visuospatial STS .538** .445* .389* .383* .454** .495** .529** .465**
Central Executive .439* – .423* .400* – – – .527**
Processing speed .441* .512** .414* .410* – – – –
Group B
Verbal STS .312* .267* .324* .399** – .354** – –
Visuospatial STS – – – – – – – –
Central Executive .415** .336* .358** .471** .404** .363** .275* –
Processing speed .343** .394** .400** .334* .372** – .429** –
Group C
Verbal STS – – – – – – – –
Visuospatial STS – – – – – – – –
Central Executive .395* .415* – – – – – .589**
Processing speed .465* – .389* .423* – .435* – .467*
CA = calculating; CN = counting and understanding number; HD = handling data; ME = measuring; NF = knowing and using number facts/algebra; SH = un-
derstanding shape; STS = short-term storage; UA = using and applying mathematics.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
Working memory and maths in 7- to 15-year-olds
9
10 Rebecca Gordon et al.

more evident in Group B compared to Groups A and C. Some relationships between

processing speed and mathematics scores were evident for all age groups but these
differed in terms of mathematics abilities across the three groups.
Multiple regression was used to understand contributions from WM to Total
Mathematics and each sub-component. First, all WM measures (i.e. verbal and visuospatial
STS, processing speed, central executive) were entered together at Step 1. Results for each
age group are shown in Table 5. Only significant models are shown. WM predicted all but
one mathematics ability measure in Group A and Group B., and only Total Mathematics
and Handling Data in Group C.
Next, separate simple regression models were run to understand the variance
explained in mathematical ability by each predictor for each age group. This was done to
identify which predictors should be included in subsequent hierarchical regression
models for each mathematics score and each age group. All significant predictors are
shown in Figure 1. Overall, more WM measures individually predicted mathematics

Table 5. Regression models (adjusted R2) ANOVA including all predictors of mathematics ability for
each age group

Group A B C

Total Mathematics (.38) F (4, 27) 5.79** (.17) F(4, 51) 3.82** (.24) F (4, 24) 3.24**
UA (.30) F (4, 27) 4.27** (.15) F (4, 51) 3.40* –
CN (.29) F (4, 27) 4.12* (.18) F (4, 51) 4.03** –
NF (.20) F (4, 27) 2.88* (.24) F (4, 51) 5.45** –
CA – (.16) F (4, 51) 3.70* –
SH (.21) F (4, 27) 3.11* (.11) F (4, 51) 2.76* –
ME (.24) F (4, 27) 3.48* (.14) F (4, 51) 3.32* –
HD (.42) F (4, 27) 6.57** – (.43) F (4, 24) 6.29**
CA = calculating; CN = counting and understanding number; HD = handling data; ME = measuring;
NF = knowing and using number facts/algebra; SH = understanding shape; UA = using and applying
mathematics.
*p ≤.05, **p < .01.

Figure 1. Variance explained in total mathematics and topics by WM components for each age group.
WM = working memory.
 Working memory and maths in 7- to 15-year-olds 11

ability in Group A, with the exception of Calculation, Measuring, and Handling data. For
Group B, mostly verbal STS, processing speed and the central executive predicted
mathematics ability. For Group C, significant models were only evident for processing
speed and the central executive.
Hierarchical regression was used to identify unique variance in each mathematics
score explained by the WM measures. The variable of interest was entered at Step 2, while
all other variables were controlled for at Step 1. For example, to identify unique variance
explained by processing speed, the other three predictors (verbal STS, visuospatial STS,
the central executive) would be entered at step one and processing speed was entered at
Step 2. This was conducted for all significant predictors from the simple regression
analyses shown in Figure 1 and was repeated for each age group. The findings are shown
in Table 6. Variables omitted due to not reaching significance in the aforementioned
simple regression are ‘greyed out’. Only values significant at p < .05 or less are shown for
ease of interpretation.
Whereas Group A showed consistent relationships with the WM measures in the
multiple and simple regressions, these relationships largely disappeared when controlling
for the other significant predictors. Visuospatial STS predicted Calculation, Understand-
ing Shape, Measuring, but none of the WM measures predicted Total Mathematics. For
Group B, processing speed predicted Using and Applying Mathematics, Counting and
Understanding Number, Measuring but, again, none of the WM measures predicted Total
Mathematics. Group C was the only age group for which the WM measures predicted
Total Mathematics (processing speed, central executive), and processing speed also
predicted Counting and Understanding Number, Knowing and Using Number Facts and
Understanding Shapes. In addition, the central executive predicted Using and Applying
Mathematics and Handling Data.

Discussion
The samples that represented each age group were typically developing in terms of NVR
and reading. Also, reading and NVR, verbal STS, visuospatial STS, the central executive,
and processing speed across the three age groups were representative of the develop-
mental trajectory expected from 7 to 15 years of age. Reading ability increased steadily
across the three age groups, and NVR increased more gradually in the younger two age
groups compared to the older age group. This is consistent with research that has shown
reading ability has a consistent steep trajectory from 7 to 15 years of age (Berman, 2004),
whereas NVR has a steeper trajectory in early adolescence compared to childhood
(Cotton et al., 2005).
Between-group differences indicated a significant developmental trajectory for
visuospatial STS, but no developmental differences in verbal STS. This is in line with
research that shows verbal STS, as denoted by forward digit span, increases more gradually
from 7 to 15 years, whereas as visuospatial STS measured using forward block span has a
steeper trajectory (Isaacs & Vargha-Khadem, 1989). Group differences for the central
executive were also consistent with the expected developmental trajectory, with
significant increases shown from 7 to 15 years of age (Gathercole et al., 2004; Huizinga &
Smidts, 2010). Significant, but gradual, increases in processing speed from Group A to
Group C were also representative of typical development (Kail, 2000).
Analysis was undertaken to identify whether visuospatial STS predicts mathematical
ability in younger children with a move to a reliance on verbal STS in older children.
 12

Table 6. Change in adjusted R2 (b) for unique predictors of mathematics ability. Only significant values are shown

Change in R2 (b)
Rebecca Gordon et al.

Total
Mathematics UA CN NF CA SH ME HD

Group A
Verbal STS – – – – – .43* (.40)
Visuospatial STS – – – – .18** (.45) .24* (.36) .26* (.45) –
CE – – – .43* (.33)
PS – .32* (.39) – – –
Group B
Verbal STS – – – – –
Visuospatial STS
CE – – – .25* (.30) .19* (.31) – –
PS – .17* (.31) .20* (.31) – – .17**(.38)
Group C
Verbal STS
Visuospatial STS
CE .28* (.35) .14* (.42) .32** (.59)
PS .28* (.43) .12* (.39) .15* (.42) .16* (.44) –
CA = calculating; CN = counting and understanding number; HD = handling data; ME = measuring; NF = knowing and using number facts/algebra; SH = un-
derstanding shape; STS = short-term storage; UA = using and applying mathematics.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
 Working memory and maths in 7- to 15-year-olds 13

Correlations showed links between visuospatial STS and all mathematics scores in 7- to 8-
year-olds but none in the older two age groups. This is, in part, consistent with the first
hypothesis. However, there were also relationships between verbal STS and mathematics
abilities in 7- to 8-year-olds and 9- to 10-year-olds, but not in 14- to 15-year-olds. This does
not support the second part of this hypothesis that verbal STS would replace visuospatial
STS in older children. Similarly, when all WM measures were used to represent WM ability,
this construct predicted all but one of the mathematics outcomes in 7- to 8-year-olds and in
9 to 10-years-olds, yet only predicted Total Mathematics and Handling Data in older
children. When examined separately, more of the WM measures predicted mathematics
ability in the younger two age groups compared to the older age group. This demonstrates
a greater reliance on WM overall from the age of 7–10 years of age compared to the early
teenage years.
When assessing unique variance in mathematics explained by the separate WM
measures, links with specific WM components largely disappeared for the youngest age
group, with visuospatial and verbal STS predicting few mathematics ability sub-scores.
Although there is some evidence of a slightly greater reliance on visuospatial STS, there is
substantially overlapping variance between the separate WM components in the
application of these to mathematics ability in this age group, suggesting a relative lack
of differentiation. Relationships between verbal and visuospatial STS and mathematics
ability vanished in 9- to 15-year-olds. Therefore, although a reliance on visuospatial STS
was demonstrated for 7- to 8-year-olds, there was no evidence for a move to verbal STS
beyond that age.
The second and third hypotheses are best addressed together. These were that the
central executive is important in mathematical ability in younger children but that this
reliance reduces in older children as procedures become automated; and that processing
speed prevents decay of information in STS in older children, who are more likely to be
relying on the retrieval of mathematics facts to complete automated operations. Links
between the central executive and mathematics were more evident in 9- to 10-year-olds,
compared to the youngest and oldest age groups, but were not totally absent in these two
groups. Similarly, relationships between processing speed and mathematics were more
common in the older two age groups but still apparent to a lesser degree in the youngest
group. Initially, these findings suggest that the central executive is important from the
ages of 7–15 years and that processing speed becomes increasingly important across
these age groups. However, the simple and hierarchical regressions demonstrated that the
central executive and processing speed were the only WM measures that predicted
mathematics ability in the older two age groups, whereas they only predicted a single
mathematical sub-component each for the youngest age groups. These findings support
the third hypothesis but only partially support the second, as it appears that reliance on
both processing speed and the central executive increases with age. However, there were
some definite patterns of relationships between specific types of mathematics ability and
individual WM measures. For the younger age group, visuospatial STS predicted the
mathematics topics that, based on previous research, ostensibly rely on visuospatial
processing; namely, Understanding Shape (Holmes & Adams, 2006); Measuring (Holmes,
Adams, & Hamilton, 2008); and Calculation (Zago & Tzourio-Mazoyer, 2002). Conversely,
these relationships were absent in the older two age groups and visuospatial STS was
replaced by the central executive and processing speed in the middle group and by
processing speed in the older group. This suggests a topic-specific relationship between
different aspects of WM and mathematical topics, which in part supports all three
hypotheses.
14 Rebecca Gordon et al.

By assessing individual WM components and examining relationships with individual

mathematics topics within separate age groups, the current study was able to demonstrate
patterns of reliance on WM for mathematics learning at a universal and granular level. This
is important given the prevalence of studies that use measures of WM to determine what
abilities are central to mathematics achievement. Theoretical implications from such
studies cannot be applied at a practical level if we do not truly understand what it is about
WM that is important in a skill as broad and varied as mathematics. The challenge of
applying these theoretical findings is further compounded if we do not understand how
the WM-mathematics relationship might change as children develop. As this study has
demonstrated, the aspects of WM that are important for mathematics learning change
dependent on age and mathematical sub-component. Although WM, as an amalgamation
of its component parts, was shown to be important for general mathematics for all age
groups (in line with previous research findings), when mathematical topics were assessed
the oldest age group relied on WM for Handling Data alone. Then, examination of WM at a
granular level demonstrated a trend of diminished reliance in 9- to 10-year-olds and 14- to
15-year-olds generally, and a similar pattern for Calculation, Shape, Measurements, and
Handling Data in all age groups. Additionally, it was then possible to identify a
considerable overlap in the individual WM abilities in younger children with a move
towards a reliance solely on the central executive and processing speed as children move
through primary to secondary school.

Theoretical and practical implications

The current study demonstrated that the roles different WM components play in
mathematics learning depends on mathematics topic and that this relationship changes as
children develop. Of equal importance is the finding that specific components of WM
uniquely predict specific mathematics abilities over and above other factors; and again,
that these relationships change as children grow older. Therefore, focusing on these
specific and evolving relationships can assist in tailoring age- and topic-appropriate
reasonable adjustments and interventions in schools. For example, there is evidence that
cognitive load reduction using techniques such as external memory aids and presenting
information in smaller chunks, can improve performance in the classroom for those
children with low WM capacity (Gathercole & Alloway, 2008). These approaches each
aim to reduce demand on short-term memory, processing speed, and the central
executive. If we understand at which point in primary and secondary school these
cognitive abilities become important in mathematics learning, and for which topics, we
can introduce these interventions and reasonable adjustments with more precision.
Future research could also consider the potential diagnostic benefits of assessing children
on these individual WM abilities to inform screening programmes aimed at early
identification of mathematical learning difficulties.

Limitations
While a standardized mathematics test was used, exact calibration in terms of relative
difficulty for the age groups is not available. However, it should be noted that the Access
Mathematics Test provides detailed comparisons against norms and patterns in the UK
National Curriculum for each age and year group. It is noted though, that the number of
individual questions within the mathematics test assessing the separate mathematics
topics was limited. Future studies should incorporate comprehensive, standalone
 Working memory and maths in 7- to 15-year-olds 15

assessments for each of the individual mathematics topics to develop a more in-depth
understanding of individual ability as it relates to WM components.

Summary
All WM measures together predicted mathematics ability for most specific topics in the
younger and middle age group, but these relationships were almost entirely absent in the
older age group. This is consistent with the idea that automatic processing is more
important in mathematics learning as children grow older and there is less reliance on
attentional and executive abilities. When the WM measures were examined individually,
relationships with mathematics were more evident in the younger age group and
gradually diminished for the middle and older age groups. However, when hierarchical
regression was used to identify unique variance over and above that explained by other
significant predictors, many of those relationships disappeared. This suggests a set of fluid
cognitive resources that work together to facilitate mathematics learning in younger
children but these separate out as children grow older. More consistent relationships with
processing speed and to a lesser degree the central executive, in the older age groups
suggests an increasing reliance on these abilities in mathematics learning up to 15 years of
age. This supports future research that can examine the relationships between the
specific WM abilities and specific mathematics topics in more detail to better understand
how such relationships might inform interventions and reasonable adjustments in the
classroom.

Conflicts of interest
All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author contributions
Emily Whitelock (Investigation) Arzoo Mukarram (Data curation; Investigation; Project
administration) Rebecca Gordon (Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis;
Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Supervision; Validation;
Visualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing) Danila Santana De
Morais (Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Writing – original draft).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding
author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

References
Allen, K., Giofre, D., Higgins, S., & Adams, J. (2020). Using working memory performance to predict
mathematics performance 2 years on. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01382-5
Allen, K., Higgins, S., & Adams, J. (2019). The relationship between visuospatial working memory
and mathematical performance in school-aged children: A systematic review. Educational
Psychology Review, 31, 509–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09470-8
16 Rebecca Gordon et al.

Avgerinou, V. A., & Tolmie, A. (2020). Inhibition and cognitive load in fractions and decimals. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12321
Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the central executive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology Section A, 49(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755608
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Psychology of learning and motivation
(Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). London, UK: Academic press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)
60452-1
Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., & Camos, V. (2004). Time constraints and resource sharing in adults’
working memory spans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 83.
Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2007). The time-based resource-sharing model of working memory. In
Working memory: State of the science (p. 85). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bayliss, D. M., Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A. D., Gunn, D. M., & Leigh, E. (2005). Mapping the
developmental constraints on working memory span performance. Developmental Psychology,
41(4), 579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.579
Bayliss, D. M., Jarrold, C., Gunn, D. M., & Baddeley, A. D. (2003). The complexities of complex span:
Explaining individual differences in working memory in children and adults. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 132(1), 71. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.71
Berman, R. A. (Ed.). (2004). Language development across childhood and adolescence (Vol. 3).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.3
Brydges, C. R., Fox, A. M., Reid, C. L., & Anderson, M. (2014). The differentiation of executive
functions in middle and late childhood: A longitudinal latent-variable analysis. Intelligence, 47,
34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.08.010
Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predictor of children’s mathematics ability:
Inhibition, switching, and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 19(3), 273–
293. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN1903_3
Case, R., Kurland, D. M., & Goldberg, J. (1982). Operational efficiency and the growth of short-term
memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 386–404. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0022-965(82)90054-6
Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005).
Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review, 12, 769–786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772
Cotton, S. M., Kiely, P. M., Crewther, D. P., Thomson, B., Laycock, R., & Crewther, S. G. (2005). A
normative and reliability study for the Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices for primary school
aged children from Victoria. Australia. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 647–659.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.015
Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-processes model of working memory. Models of Working
Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control, 20, 506. https://psycne
t.apa.org/doi/10.1017/CBO9781139174909.006
Cowan, N. (2014). Working memory underpins cognitive development, learning, and education.
Educational Psychology Review, 26, 197–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y
Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Saults, J. S., Morey, C. C., Mattox, S., Hismjatullina, A., & Conway, A. R.
(2005). On the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive
aptitudes. Cognitive Psychology, 51(1), 42–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.12.
001
Cragg, L., Keeble, S., Richardson, S., Roome, H. E., & Gilmore, C. (2017). Direct and indirect
influences of executive functions on mathematics achievement. Cognition, 162, 12–26. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.014
De Smedt, B., Janssen, R., Bouwens, K., Verschaffel, L., Boets, B., & Ghesquiere, P. (2009). Working
memory and individual differences in mathematics achievement: A longitudinal study from first
grade to second grade. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 186–201. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.01.004
 Working memory and maths in 7- to 15-year-olds 17

Denckla, M. B. (Ed.) (1994). Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New
views on measurement issues. Measurement of executive function. (pp. 117–142). Baltimore,
Maryland: Brookes.
Department for Education (2014). The National Curriculum in England, Framework Document.
Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-curriculumAccessed.
Accessed 26 August 2020
Elliot, C. D., & Smith, P. (2011). British ability scales–Third edition (BAS-3). London: GL
Assessment.
Fanari, R., Meloni, C., & Massidda, D. (2019). Visual and spatial working memory abilities predict
early math skills: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2460. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fpsyg.2019.02460
Formoso, J., Injoque-Ricle, I., Barreyro, J. P., Calero, A., Jacubovich, S., & Burın, D. I. (2018).
Mathematical cognition, working memory, and processing speed in children. Cognition, Brain,
Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 59–84. https://doi.org/10.24193/cbb.2018.22.05
Friso-Van den Bos, I., Van der Ven, S. H., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. (2013). Working
memory and mathematics in primary school children: A meta-analysis. Educational Research
Review, 10, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.003
Gathercole, S., & Alloway, T. P. (2008). Working memory and learning: A practical guide for
teachers. London, UK: Sage.
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The structure of working
memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0012-1649.40.2.177
Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year
longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1539. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0025510
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., & DeSoto, M. C. (2004). Strategy choices in simple and
complex addition: Contributions of working memory and counting knowledge for children with
mathematical disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88(2), 121–151. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.03.002
Gordon, R., Smith-Spark, J. H., Newton, E. J., & Henry, L. A. (2020). Working memory and high-level
cognition in children: An analysis of timing and accuracy in complex span tasks. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 191, 104736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104736
Henry, L., & MacLean, M. (2003). Relationships between working memory, expressive vocabulary
and arithmetical reasoning in children with and without intellectual disabilities. Educational
and Child Psychology, 20, 51–63.
Holmes, J., & Adams, J. W. (2006). Working memory and children’s mathematical skills: Implications
for mathematical development and mathematics curricula. Educational Psychology, 26, 339–
366. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500341056
Holmes, J., Adams, J. W., & Hamilton, C. J. (2008). The relationship between visuospatial sketchpad
capacity and children’s mathematical skills. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20,
272–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440701612702
Huizinga, M., & Smidts, D. P. (2010). Age-related changes in executive function: A normative study
with the Dutch version of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF). Child
Neuropsychology, 17(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2010.509715
Imbo, I., & LeFevre, J. A. (2010). The role of phonological and visual working memory in complex
arithmetic for Chinese-and Canadian-educated adults. Memory & Cognition, 38(2), 176–185.
https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.2.176
Imbo, I., & Vandierendonck, A. (2007). The development of strategy use in elementary school
children: Working memory and individual differences. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 96, 284–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.09.001
Isaacs, E. B., & Vargha-Khadem, F. (1989). Differential course of development of spatial and verbal
memory span: A normative study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7(4), 377–380.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1989.tb00814.x
18 Rebecca Gordon et al.

Kail, R. (2000). Speed of information processing: Developmental change and links to intelligence.
Journal of School Psychology, 38(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00036-9
Lee, K., & Bull, R. (2016). Developmental changes in working memory, updating, and math
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 869. https://doi.org/10.1037/ed
u0000090
Li, Y., & Geary, D. C. (2013). Developmental gains in visuospatial memory predict gains in
mathematics achievement. PLoS One, 8(7), e70160. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0070160
McCarty, C. (2008). Access mathematics test. Totton: Hodder Education.
Meyer, M. L., Salimpoor, V. N., Wu, S. S., Geary, D. C., & Menon, V. (2010). Differential contribution
of specific working memory components to mathematics achievement in 2nd and 3rd graders.
Learning and Individual Differences, 20(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.
08.004
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action. In R. J. Davidson G. E. Schwartz & D.
Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation (pp. 1–18). Boston, MA: Springer.
Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. (2001). Working memory test battery for children (WMTB-C).
Oxford: Harcourt Assessment.
Rabbitt, P. (1997). Introduction: Methodologies and models in the study of executive function. In P.
Rabbitt (Ed.), Methodology of frontal and executive function (pp. 1–38). Hove, UK: Psychology
Press.
Shallice, T., & Burgess, P. (1996). The domain of supervisory processes and temporal organization of
behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological
Sciences, 351(1346), 1405–1412.
Swanson, H. L. (2006). Cross-sectional and incremental changes in working memory and
mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 265. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.265
Thompson, W. K., Barch, D. M., Bjork, J. M., Gonzalez, R., Nagel, B. J., Nixon, S. J., & Luciana, M.
(2019). The structure of cognition in 9 and 10 year-old children and associations with problem
behaviors: Findings from the ABCD study’s baseline neurocognitive battery. Developmental
Cognitive Neuroscience, 36, 100606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2018.12.004
Toll, S. W., Van der Ven, S. H., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. (2011). Executive functions as
predictors of math learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(6), 521–532.
Towse, J. N., & Hitch, G. J. (1995). Is there a relationship between task demand and storage Space in
tests of working memory capacity? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(1),
108–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401379
Towse, J. N., Hitch, G. J., & Hutton, U. (1998). A reevaluation of working memory capacity in
children. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.
2574
Tronsky, L. N. (2005). Strategy use, the development of automaticity, and working memory
involvement in complex multiplication. Memory & Cognition, 33, 927–940. https://doi.org/10.
3758/BF03193086
Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. (2015). Verbal and visual-spatial
working memory and mathematical ability in different domains throughout primary school.
Memory & Cognition, 43(3), 367–378.
van der Ven, S. H., van der Maas, H. L., Straatemeier, M., & Jansen, B. R. (2013). Visuospatial working
memory and mathematical ability at different ages throughout primary school. Learning and
Individual Differences, 27, 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.003
Zago, L., & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2002). Distinguishing visuospatial working memory and complex
mental calculation areas within the parietal lobes. Neuroscience Letters, 331(1), 45–49. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(02)00833-9

Received 22 January 2021; revised version received 9 June 2021

Copyright of British Journal of Educational Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.