Journal of Behavioral and Neuroscience Research

2006, Vol. 4, 1-7

2006 The College of Saint Rose

BRIEF REPORT

!so of fho IIocfronIc Cnmo SIMO ns n
Monsuro of WorkIng Momory Snn In CoIIogo Ago
AduIfs

Mnfhow H. CondIo
*
nnd MIchnoI !. !nnsom
Department of Psychology, Elon University, Elon NC, 27244

The present report describes a procedure for measuring working memory span using the
SIMON, a commercially available electronic game. This procedure was utilized to assess
working memory span in a sample of college age adults (N = 94), and normative data gathered
from this sample is provided. Across four trials occurring in succession, with 30 s rest periods
between each trial, performance on the SIMON was resistant to habituation, practice effects, and
proactive interference across trials. No gender differences in performance were uncovered. The
SIMON game holds potential value as a rapid and portable measure of working memory span in
adults, and it appears to have psychometric properties similar to that of the Knox Cube Test and
the Corsi Block Tapping Task.

Key Terms: Working Memory, Span Task, Memory Test, Normative Data

Working memory is a fundamental aspect of
executive cognition that is thought to encompass three
primary mental processes: 1) the access of information,
2) on-line operation(s) on this information, and 3) the
production of a motor output response based on these
operations (Goldman-Rakic, 1987). At present, several
distinct theoretical conceptualizations of working
memory exist within the cognitive science literature
(reviewed in Kimberg, DEsposito, & Farah, 1998).
This lack of consensus may be due, in part, to the
functional complexity of working memory, which
includes aspects of rehearsal, maintenance, short term
storage, attention, and executive control (Kimberg, et
al., 1998). Working memory is widely accepted as
being dependent on the lateral frontal cortex (Fuster,
1997; Goldman-Rakic, 1987; Owen, et al., 1998; 1999;
Owen, 2000), and plays an important role in the
temporal coordination of guided behavior via the
perception-action cycle (Fuster, 2000).
----------------------------------------------------------------
*Corresponding Author:
Mathew H. Gendle
Department of Psychology
Elon University
Elon, NC 27244
Phone 336-278-6431
Fax 336-278-6397
Email mgendle@elon.edu

Immediate serial recall and memory span
tasks are two common tools used to assess working
memory in humans (Baddeley, 1996). In such tasks,
the participant is presented with a series of stimuli, and
required to recall this stimulus string in sequential
order (Baddeley, 1996). In these tasks, the likelihood
of correct recall is directly related to the length of the
stimulus string, and by manipulating the length of this
string, the participants working memory capacity
(memory span) can be assessed (Baddeley, 1996).
Two span tasks that specifically assess spatial
aspects of working memory (spatial memory span) are
the Knox Cube Test (KCT; Lezak, 1995) and the Corsi
Block Tapping Task (CBT; Berch, Krikorian, & Huha,
1998; Corsi, 1972; Fischer, 2001; Lezak, 1995). In the
KCT, four blocks are attached in a row to a strip of
wood (Lezak, 1995). These blocks are tapped by the
examiner in prearranged sequences which increase in
both complexity and length; immediately following
sequence presentation, the participant must copy each
pattern exactly (Lezak, 1995). The CBT is a variant of
the KCT, where nine black cubes are attached
randomly to a wood board, and are used to present
tapping sequences to the participant (Lezak, 1995).
Much like the KCT, the participant must repeat these
tapping sequences in turn, immediately following
sequence presentation (Lezak, 1995). For both tasks,
Journol for Belotiorol onJ Aeuroecience Ieeeorcl GenJle & Ioneon
2006, Vol. 4, 1-7
2
the maximum sequence length that can be recalled is
considered to be the participants maximum memory
span. Because these tasks require the repetition of the
stimulus string immediately following presentation,
they minimize the importance of rehearsal in task
performance, and therefore serve as an index of
working memory storage processes (DEsposito &
Postle, 1999). Although deficits observed on span
tasks are often attributed to alterations in storage
capacity, they may also result from difficulty with
stimulus encoding, disruptions in attention, deficiencies
in inhibitory control, or problems in the production of
appropriate motor outputs (Canfield, Gendle, & Cory-
Slechta, 2004).
In the present study, we investigate the use of
the electronic game SIMON as an alternative
measure of working memory span in college age
adults, and describe a novel testing protocol
appropriate to this population. The SIMON game
consists of a small device featuring four response
buttons. In the game, in which sequences of increasing
length are provided, the participant attempts to copy
the sequences in the exact order in which they are
presented. Although conceptually similar to the CBT,
the SIMON apparatus features several notable
differences that merit discussion. As mentioned above,
the game features four buttons, rather than the nine
blocks typically used for the CBT. This reduction
alters the nature of the task, as fewer spatial locations
need to be attended to during sequence presentation.
Although this change simplifies the task, it is important
to note that this reduction may serve to enhance the
effects of proactive interference across trials. Unlike
the CBT (where all blocks are the same color), each
button on the SIMON is distinctly colored and emits
a unique audio tone when pressed and when stimulus
strings are presented. Therefore, the SIMON is a less
pure measure of spatial memory than is the CBT, as
the patterns of visual colors and auditory tones
associated with each stimulus sequence likely serve as
mnemonic aids during pattern recall. In theory,
participants could obtain very high span scores by
paying attention specifically to color and/or tonal
patterns and largely ignoring the spatial organization of
the sequences presented.
Despite the general lack of specificity
regarding the assessment of spatial memory per se, it is
clear that the SIMON holds several potential
advantages over the CBT as a general measure of
working memory span. Unlike the CBT, which
requires the test administrator to manually produce
each sequence to be copied, the SIMON produces
random sequences of increasing length automatically,
and it electronically tracks the responses of the
participant. Moreover, in contrast to the CBT
apparatus (and many computerized versions of the
CBT), the SIMON is small and easily portable, which
would likely facilitate its use in non-laboratory
environments and with pediatric populations. The
SIMON is also visually engaging and familiar to
many individuals (having been successfully marketed
as a toy in the United States for over twenty years);
these features may help to minimize poor test
performance due to low arousal, motivation, or interest.
In addition, the SIMON is mass-produced,
inexpensive, and widely available, characteristics
which make it a potentially attractive choice for many
researchers. Because of the many potential advantages
of using the SIMON as a measure of working
memory span, we have developed a protocol that could
be used to this end. We then collected preliminary
normative data describing working memory span in a
sample of college age adults.

Methods

Participants

The experimental protocol was approved by
the Institutional Review Board of Elon University.
Participants were 94 English speaking college students,
ranging from 18 to 22 years of age. Participants were
recruited by advertising for volunteers, and each
participant was entered into a raffle for $50 in
exchange for participation. At the time of recruitment,
each participant was instructed to refrain from the use
of alcohol for 24 hours prior to testing, and from all
other recreational drugs for 48 hours prior to testing.
At the time of testing, all participants were directly
asked if these instructions were followed. All
participants indicated compliance with these
instructions, and no participants withdrew from the
study.

Materials & Apparatus

The SIMON (Hasbro, Pawtucket, RI), a
commercially produced electronic game, is constructed
of lightweight yellow plastic, is oval shaped, and
measures approximately 12.5 cm and 9.5 cm at its
widest points. Four colored (green, red, blue, and
yellow) plastic buttons are provided to present stimuli
and record responses. For each sequence presented,
the buttons in the sequence light up in turn, and each
button is paired with a specific tone. The SIMON
game allows for several game options; the 20 signal
SIMON Says game was chosen for study. In this
game, sequences are presented one at a time, starting
with a sequence of one and ending with a sequence of
twenty. As the game progresses, each span to be
recalled increases by one in length. Initially, each
Journol for Belotiorol onJ Aeuroecience Ieeeorcl GenJle & Ioneon
2006, Vol. 4, 1-7
3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Span Length
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1 Frequency distribution for the maximum span length achieved on each trial, collapsed across
all participants (M = 7.52, SD = 2.18, N = 376).

stimulus in the sequence is briefly presented (< 500
ms). The speed of presentation of stimuli increases
after sequence lengths of 7, 11, and 15. Unfortunately,
we were unable to accurately measure the exact length
of stimuli in either the initial, or the longer accelerated
sequences, and Hasbro customer service was unable to
provide this information. After each sequence is
presented, the participant has 3 s to recall the sequence
by touching each button on the apparatus in order.
Failure to correctly do so (or a failure to respond within
3 s following the presentation of the stimulus
sequence) results in the termination of the trial. For
each trial, the participants span was considered to be
the longest pattern that was correctly recalled.

Procedure

Each participant was tested individually in a
session lasting approximately 15 minutes. Testing
occurred between 1200 and 1800 h, under uniform
lighting conditions. Each participant was seated at a
small table facing an empty wall, and the SIMON
game was placed directly in front of him or her on the
table. Participants were then told that the game could
not be picked up, and that it must remain on the table at
all times. At this point, the following standardized
instructions were given:

This is a simple electronic game that we
will use to test memory function. A
series of sequences of increasing length
will be presented; you must copy each of
them in turn. Please work quickly, as
you will have only three seconds to
respond after a sequence is given. If you
make a mistake, a tone will sound and
the trial will be over. Do you understand
these instructions? Clarification was
then provided as needed. We will begin
with a practice sequence, and then four
Journol for Belotiorol onJ Aeuroecience Ieeeorcl GenJle & Ioneon
2006, Vol. 4, 1-7
4
sequences that will be recorded. A thirty
second rest period will be administered
between each sequence. Please do not
speak during the testing session, and also
keep the SIMON on the table.

As described in the instructions, each
participant received one practice trial and four test
trials. The number of test trials was restricted to four
in order to limit the possible effects of testing fatigue.
Each participant was allowed to respond with his or her
preferred hand; however, the participants were
instructed to place their hands in their lap and not move
them in any way, except when copying a presented
sequence. After the testing instructions were given, the
test administrator set up the SIMON for the proper
game (the 20 signal SIMON Says). As described
in the instruction sheet that is provided with the
SIMON, this game is invoked by completing the
following operations in order: 1) Pressing the Game
button; 2) Pressing the yellow response button (lens 1);
3) Pressing the Level button, and; 4) Pressing the
pink response button (lens 3). Once the game was set
up for testing, the participant was instructed to Press
the red start button when you are ready to begin.
Participants had up to 2 minutes to initiate the first
(practice) trial, although all participants initiated testing
within a few seconds after the instructions were given.
Again, a silent 30 s rest period was administered
between each trial, and participants were verbally
instructed to press the start button (to initiate the next
trial) at the end of each rest period. The maximum
span length achieved on each trial was recorded
manually by the test administrator, who was sitting in
the opposite corner of the testing room (to minimize
discomfort to the participant). The mean span length
(across the four test trials) for each participant was also
calculated.

Analyses

For analyses, a repeated-measures analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was used to assess statistical
significance, accounting for the correlation induced by
multiple trials within each participant. An alpha level
of .05 was used for significance tests, and all tests were
two-tailed. All statistical analyses were conducted
using SAS 8.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) for Windows
XP.

Results

All participants successfully completed the
testing procedure according to the instructions. The
frequency distribution for the maximum span length
achieved on all trials (M = 7.52, SD = 2.18) is
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1: Quantile scores from a sample of college age
adults (N = 94) for both maximum span length
achieved on each trial (collapsed across all
participants), and mean span length for each
participant across the four trials.

Quantiles
Maximum
Span Length
Mean Span
Length
Minimum 2 5.00
1% 3 5.00
5% 4 5.75
10% 5 6.00
25% 6 6.50
50% (Median) 7 7.25
75% 9 8.25
90% 10 9.25
95% 11 9.75
99% 14 11.25
Maximum 15 11.25
-------------------------------------------------------------------

presented in Figure 1. The frequency distribution for
the mean span length achieved across the four trials by
each participant (M = 7.52, SD = 1.23) is presented in
Figure 2. Quantile scores for both maximum span
length (collapsed across all participants) and mean span
length (for each participant) are provided in Table 1.
Inter-trial correlations for trials one through four
(collapsed across all participants) are provided in Table
2 (all ps > .10).
No specific prediction was made regarding
how participant performance might change over the
course of a testing session, as performance could
potentially increase due to practice and increasing
familiarity with the game; or decrease, as a result of
fatigue, proactive interference, or lapses in attention.
After accounting for the correlation of within-
participant scores, as described above, the average of
the spans from all participants at each of the four trials
was calculated. As shown in Figure 3, the mean span
length across the four trials did not significantly differ,
F(3,282) = 0.45, p = .72.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2: Inter-trial correlations (collapsed across all
participants, N = 94) for trials one through four
(all ps > .10).

Trial Number Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4
Trial 1 XXX .07 -.02 .09
Trial 2 XXX .13 .16
Trial 3 XXX .13
Trial 4 XXX
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Journol for Belotiorol onJ Aeuroecience Ieeeorcl GenJle & Ioneon
2006, Vol. 4, 1-7
5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Mean Span Length
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2 Frequency distribution for the mean span length for each participant (across four trials) (M=
7.52, SD = 1.23, N = 94).

To date, few studies have examined sex
differences on the CBT, and the results of these studies
have been mixed (Kessels, et al., 2000). In order to
assess potential sex differences on the SIMON,
average span lengths for each gender were calculated
by taking the mean of all the spans for both males (n =
17) and females (n = 77), again accounting for within-
participant correlation. Using this approach,
significant sex differences on SIMON performance
were not found, F(1,94) = 1.28, p = .26.

Discussion

In the present report, we have recommended
an administration procedure using the electronic game
SIMON as a measure of working memory span; and
provided preliminary normative data in college age
adults collected using this procedure. The SIMON
game appears to be well suited as a measure of
working memory span in this population. Importantly,
significant changes in performance were not observed
across the four test trials, suggesting that the SIMON
maintains attentional engagement, and provides a
measure of working memory span that is relatively
resistant to habituation, interference, and practice
effects. It is important to note that the small inter-trial
correlations found using the SIMON (Table 2) were
the expected result of the random generation of test
sequences, as some sequences were inherently easier or
more difficult to complete than others. Indeed, the
reliability of the SIMON would be significantly
enhanced if all sequences provided were calibrated to
the median level of difficulty, or increased in relative
difficulty at the same rate across the four trial session.
As described above, the SIMON holds
several potential advantages over the CBT as a
measure of working memory span, including: 1)
automated stimulus presentation and response tracking;
2) engaging stimuli; 3) portability; and 4) wide
availability. The average maximum span in our sample
(M = 7.52, SD = 2.18) is roughly similar to the average
maximum span documented in a normative, healthy
adult sample using the standard 9-cube CBT board (M
= 6.2, SD = 1.3; Kessels, et al., 2000). However,
Journol for Belotiorol onJ Aeuroecience Ieeeorcl GenJle & Ioneon
2006, Vol. 4, 1-7
6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3 Mean span length did not significantly differ across the four trials of the SIMON game,
F(3,282) = 0.45, p = .72. Error bars are +/-SEM.

performance on the SIMON should not necessarily
be directly equated to performance on the CBT. The
SIMON differs from the CBT in several regards
(described above), including a reduced number of
spatial locations requiring attention, unique coloring of
each location, and the pairing of a unique tone with
each spatial stimulus. Although these differences may
result in some degree of proactive interference, it is
suspected that the pairing of specific colors and tones
with each stimulus location on the SIMON is likely
to facilitate performance when compared to any variant
of the CBT.
Several future areas of research are indicated
by the present study. In light of the potential
facilitating effect of the pairing of particular sounds
and colors with each spatial location, it would be
valuable to study the effects of the removal of these
cues on SIMON performance. In addition, future
work is required to: 1) asses the validity of the
SIMON as a clinical measure of working memory, by
administering the game along with previously validated
measures of working memory span such as the CBT
and correlating the outcomes of these assessments, and;
2) establish the test-retest reliability of this game as a
measure of working memory span over distinct testing
intervals. Because of the salient nature of the game,
the SIMON may prove valuable in the assessment of
working memory span in pediatric populations,
however, future studies with such populations are
required before its utility in this area can be
determined.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded in part by a grant to
MRR from the Elon University Undergraduate
Research Program.

References

Baddeley, A. (1996). The fractionation of working memory.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 93,
13468-13472.
Berch, D. B., Krikorian, R., & Huha, E. M. (1998). The Corsi Block-
Tapping Task: Methodological and theoretical considerations.
Brain and Cognition, 38, 317-338.
Canfield, R. L., Gendle, M. H., & Cory-Slechta, D. A. (2004).
Impaired neuropsychological functioning in lead-exposed
children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26, 513-540.
Corsi, P. M. (1972). Human memory and the medial temporal region
of the brain. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 891B.
DEsposito, M. & Postle, B. R. (1999). The dependence of span and
delayed response performance on prefrontal cortex.
Neuropsychologia, 37, 1303-1315.
Journol for Belotiorol onJ Aeuroecience Ieeeorcl GenJle & Ioneon
2006, Vol. 4, 1-7
7
Fischer, M. H. (2001). Probing spatial working memory with the
Corsi Blocks Task. Brain and Cognition, 45, 143-154.
Fuster, J. M. (1997). The prefrontal cortex: Anatomy, physiology,
and neuropsychology of the frontal lobe. Philadelphia, PA:
Lippincott-Raven.
Fuster, J. M. (2000). Executive frontal functions. Experimental Brain
Research, 133, 66-70.
Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1987). Circuitry of primate prefrontal cortex
and regulation of behavior by representational memory. In F.
Plum (Ed.), Handbook of physiology: Sec. 1. The nervous
system: Vol. 5, Higher functions of the brain (part 1) (pp. 373-
416). Bethesda, MD: American Physiological Society.
Kessels, R. P. C., van Zandvoort, M. J. E., Postma, A., Kappelle, L.
J., & de Haan, E. H. F. (2000). The Corsi Block-Tapping
Task: Standardization and normative data. Applied
Neuropsychology, 7, 252-258.
Kimberg, D. Y., DEsposito, M., & Farah, M. J. (1997). Cognitive
functions in the prefrontal cortex-Working memory and
executive control. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 6, 185-192.
Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Owen, A. M., Stern, C. E., Look, R. B., Tracey, I., Rosen, B. R., &
Petrides, M. (1998). Functional organization of spatial and
nonspatial working memory processing within the human
lateral frontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA, 95, 7721-7726.
Owen, A. M., Herrod, N. J., Menon, D. K., Clark, J. C., Downey, S.
P., Carpenter, T. A., Minhas, P. S., Turkheimer, F. E.,
Williams, E. J., Robbins, T. W., Sahakian, B. J., Petrides, M.,
& Pickard, J. D. (1999). Redefining the functional
organization of working memory processes within human
lateral prefrontal cortex. European Journal of Neuroscience,
11, 567-574.
Owen, A. M. (2000). The role of lateral frontal cortex in mnemonic
processing: The contribution of functional neuroimaging.
Experimental Brain Research, 133, 33-43.


Received December 13, 2005
Revision Received May 19, 2006
Accepted June 10, 2006