近年来，在工作记忆研究领域，工作记忆广度任务越来越被重视，一项研究经过长期调查认为复杂工作记忆广度任务能够可信和有效地测量工作记忆能力。目前，很多研究者通过设计不同的工作记忆广度任务用以探讨工作记忆中的领域一般性与领域特异性，但是在行为学和脑影像学研究中都存在不同的结果和观点，本研究试图使用两种不同的工作记忆广度任务比较分析神经机制上的异同，从脑结构和脑功能两个角度阐述工作记忆的领域一般性和领域特异性的神经基础。

本研究选取397名健康大学生作为被试，采集大样本的数据集，从个体差异的角度考察言语工作记忆广度和空间工作记忆广度在脑结构（灰质体积）和静息态脑网络功能连接强度（全脑节点中心度DC值和全脑基于体素水平BOLD信号的标准差mfSD值）上的神经基础。在神经机制层面探究是否存在神经活动的一般性指标能够预测言语工作记忆广度和空间工作记忆广度的共同成分，以及是否存在神经活动的特异性指标能够分别预测言语工作记忆广度和空间工作记忆广度，使其在脑结构和脑功能上实现清晰、明确地分离，进而更加深入了解言语工作记忆广度和空间工作记忆广度其本质上的相同之处和不同之处。

结果发现，对行为数据进行主成分分析成功提取出了一项工作记忆主成分分数，随后分析发现了如下领域一般性的脑指标可以预测两个工作记忆广度成绩共同成分的个体差异，具体包括：左侧额上回、右侧额中回、右侧运动辅助区、右侧缘上回、右侧中央前回和右侧颞上回的灰质体积，以及左侧颞中回、左侧小脑下回和右侧楔回的DC值，还有右侧小脑下回、右侧旁海马回和左侧颞中回的mfSD值，以上结果证明在两种工作记忆广度任务中可能存在一些负责领域一般性功能的脑区。同时，也都有一些领域特异性的脑指标可以分别预测空间工作记忆广度成绩和言语工作记忆广度成绩的个体差异。对于空间工作记忆广度，能够预测其成绩个体差异的具体有：小脑蚓体、右背外侧额上回、右侧梭状回、右侧楔前叶、右侧旁海马回和右侧海马回的灰质体积，以及右侧颞中回、右侧梭状回、左侧前扣带和旁扣带回、右侧顶下缘角回和右侧中央后回的DC值。对于言语工作记忆广度，能够预测其成绩个体差异的是左侧眶部额下回的mfSD值。

以上相关证据从脑结构和脑功能两个方面比较分析了言语工作记忆广度和空间工作记忆广度的神经机制，发现了支持领域一般性的脑区和脑指标，也找到了能够分别预测两种工作记忆广度成绩个体差异的领域特异性脑区和领域特异性指标，为领域一般性和领域特异性的学术热点争议提供一个新角度的证据和见解。

In recent years, working memory span tasks have been paid more and more attention in the field of working memory research, and a long-term investigation shows that complex working memory span tasks can reliably and effectively measure working memory ability. At present, many researchers design different working memory span tasks to explore the domain-generality and domain-specificity in working memory, but there are different results and viewpoints in behavioral and brain imaging studies, this study attempted to compare and analyze the similarities and differences in neural mechanisms using two different working memory span tasks, from the perspectives of brain structure and brain function, the neural basis of domain-generality and domain-specificity of working memory is expounded.

In this study, 397 healthy college students were selected as subjects to collect large sample data sets, the neural basis of verbal working memory span and spatial working memory span on brain structure (Gray Matter Volume) and functional connectivity strength of resting brain network (Degree Centrality (DC) and the whole brain standard deviation(mfSD) based on BOLD signal of voxel level) were investigated from the perspective of individual differences. Exploring whether there are general indicators of neural activity at the level of neural mechanisms that predict the common components of verbal and spatial working memory span, and whether there are specific indexes of neural activity that can predict the span of verbal working memory and spatial working memory respectively, so as to achieve clear and definite separation in brain structure and brain function, furthermore, the essential similarities and differences between the verbal working memory span and the spatial working memory span are further explored.

It was found that a working memory principal component score was successfully extracted by principal component analysis (PCA) on behavioral data, the following general brain indicators were found to predict individual differences in the common components of two working memory span scores, the Gray Matter Volume in the left Superior Frontal Gyrus, right Middle Frontal Gyrus, right Supplementary Motor Area, right Supramarginal Gyrus, right Precentral Gyrus and right Superior Temporal Gyrus, and the DC values of the left Middle Temporal Gyrus, the left Inferior Cerebellum Gyrus and the right Cuneus Gyrus, as well as the mfSD values of the right Inferior Cerebellum Gyrus, the right Parahippocampal Gyrus and the left Middle Temporal Gyrus, these results suggest that there may be brain regions responsible for domain-general functions in both working memory span tasks. At the same time, there are some domain-specific brain indexes that can predict the individual differences of spatial working memory span and verbal working memory span. For the spatial working memory span, individual differences can be predicted by the Gray Matter Volume of Vermis, right dorsolateral Superior Frontal Gyrus, right Fusiform Gyrus, right Precuneus, right Parahippocampal Gyrus and right Hippocampus, as well as the DC values of the right Middle Temporal Gyrus, right Fusiform Gyrus, left Anterior Cingulate and Paracingulate Gyri, right Inferior Parietal Gyrus and right Postcentral Gyrus. For the verbal working memory span, the individual difference was predicted by the mfSD value of the left Inferior Orbitofrontal Gyrus.

The above evidences compare and analyze the neural mechanisms of verbal working memory span and spatial working memory span from two aspects of brain structure and brain function, the brain regions and brain indicators were found to support for domain-general, domain-specific brain regions and domain-specific indicators were found to predict individual differences in working memory span, it provides a new angle of evidence and view for the academic hot dispute of domain-generality and domain-specificity.