<p>(First of all, sorry if this is a silly question; this is not my discipline.)</p>
<p>I am planning on conducting a study, and one of the things I would like to have is a sense of participants' long-term memory (I am thinking of remembering a set of numbers after ~10 minutes). I do not have enough time to conduct a proper long-term memory test, so <strong>I was wondering whether a working memory test (such as OSPAN) would be a good proxy for long-term memory.</strong></p>
<p>I have tried to find research on the topic using Google Scholar and reading some of the results, but I have not found a clear answer to this question. It would be great if you could provide some insight or cites of relevant work.</p>
<p>What I imagine are papers in which a given set of participants takes both working memory and long-term memory tests, and the correlation between performance in these is correlated.</p>
<p>Additionally, I am <strong>not</strong> interested in whether long-term memory about something increases working memory. Just whether people who have good working memory happen to be people that also have good long-term memory.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-13T01:27:15.297Z
Even if they *are* correlated (which I suspect they are, but fairly weakly), I can't imagine any peer reviewer letting you claim a working memory task is a proxy for long-term memory, because you won't be able to verify that it's a good proxy *in your study* and because you'd be better off simply stating what you've actually done, which is test working memory. Why is it so important to you that you measure long-term memory? And why is that importance not sufficient motivation to take more time with your assay?
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-13T06:50:49.363Z
Agreed with @BryanKrause - memory can be very dicey: Not only might working memory not correlate well with long-term memory, but different types of long-term memory may not correlate well with each other.  You are really better off testing the actual thing you want to know.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-17T05:44:32.873Z
@BryanKrause and Arnon Thank you for your replies. I am interested in doing an exploratory analysis of the type: is main result X partly explained by individual differences in long-term memory? (i.e. remembering numbers ~10 minutes after seeing them). Is there any type that resembles that and that lasts no more than ~10 minutes? It's for a Master's thesis in Econ (so I am not worrying about peer review right now) and my budget is limited, hence the reason I think I might only be able to measure working memory. Thank you again, you were very helpful.
mrtnsrmo
<memory><long-term-memory><short-term-memory>
What is the correlation between working memory and long term memory?
mrtnsrmo
# What is the correlation between working memory and long term memory?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-06-12)

(First of all, sorry if this is a silly question; this is not my discipline.)

I am planning on conducting a study, and one of the things I would like to have is a sense of participants' long-term memory (I am thinking of remembering a set of numbers after ~10 minutes). I do not have enough time to conduct a proper long-term memory test, so **I was wondering whether a working memory test (such as OSPAN) would be a good proxy for long-term memory.**

I have tried to find research on the topic using Google Scholar and reading some of the results, but I have not found a clear answer to this question. It would be great if you could provide some insight or cites of relevant work.

What I imagine are papers in which a given set of participants takes both working memory and long-term memory tests, and the correlation between performance in these is correlated.

Additionally, I am **not** interested in whether long-term memory about something increases working memory. Just whether people who have good working memory happen to be people that also have good long-term memory.

Thanks!

**Tags:** memory, long-term-memory, short-term-memory

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Even if they *are* correlated (which I suspect they are, but fairly weakly), I can't imagine any peer reviewer letting you claim a working memory task is a proxy for long-term memory, because you won't be able to verify that it's a good proxy *in your study* and because you'd be better off simply stating what you've actually done, which is test working memory. Why is it so important to you that you measure long-term memory? And why is that importance not sufficient motivation to take more time with your assay?  
> **username_2**: Agreed with @BryanKrause - memory can be very dicey: Not only might working memory not correlate well with long-term memory, but different types of long-term memory may not correlate well with each other.  You are really better off testing the actual thing you want to know.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause and Arnon Thank you for your replies. I am interested in doing an exploratory analysis of the type: is main result X partly explained by individual differences in long-term memory? (i.e. remembering numbers ~10 minutes after seeing them). Is there any type that resembles that and that lasts no more than ~10 minutes? It's for a Master's thesis in Econ (so I am not worrying about peer review right now) and my budget is limited, hence the reason I think I might only be able to measure working memory. Thank you again, you were very helpful.  

---

## 0 answers

