Considerable variability has been observed in both the native (L1) and non-native (L2) sentence processing literature (see, [1] for a review in L1 context; see, [2] for a review in L2 context). In the L1 literature, it has long been established that language comprehension ability is strongly associated with individual differences (IDs) in working memory (WM) capacity (cf., e.g., [3] [4] [5]). However, in the L2 literature only few studies have investigated the effects of IDs in WM capacity on sentence processing with mixed results [6] [2]. Furthermore, there is a growing recognition that the relationship between WM and L1 comprehension ability is affected by linguistic experience ([7] [8]; see [9] for an overview). A recent study has provided first direct experimental evidence that verbal WM scores are predictive of L1 processing ability and significantly correlated with measures of the amount of language experience [10]. Building upon the insights gained from the L1 literature, the goal of the present study is twofold: (1) to determine whether and to what extent verbal WM capacity as gauged by reading span task correlates with IDs in two “proxy measures” of L2 experience assessed via an L2 vocabulary task (LexTALE, cf. [11]) and the number of months spent abroad in an English-speaking country and (2) to investigate the relationship between vWM scores and performance in an L2 comprehension task. Thirty-four German advanced L2 learners of English participated in this study. Verbal WM capacity was assessed using a modified version of the Waters and Caplan (1996) reading span task [12]. Performance on this task was scored using a composite score by summing up the standardized scores for the speed, (semantic judgment) accuracy and recall components of the task. To assess L2 comprehension ability, we decided to use the sentence comprehension task presented in [13]. This task was based on sentence material drawn from three different prior studies capturing various aspects of language processing. Following [13], the measures of interest for our analyses were the comprehension accuracy scores. We found significant positive correlations between the verbal WM scores and both L2 experience measures (WM-L2 vocabulary knowledge: r=0.38, p = 0.026; WM- stay abroad: r=0.40, p = 0.016) (Goal 1). No correlation was found between the two experience measures (r=0.14, p=0.43). To determine the effects of IDs in vWM capacity on L2 comprehension ability (Goal 2), a mixed logit model was fitted to the comprehension accuracy scores. We found that WM capacity exerted a significant effect on the performance in the L2 comprehension task (β=0.18, SE=0.07, z=2.67, p=0.08): individuals with higher vWM scores exhibited better comprehension performance. No independent effects of two experience measures were observed. Taken together, our findings provide (1) additional evidence in support of the involvement of WM in L2 sentence processing and (2) first evidence that WM capacity is affected by L2 experience. These results suggest that, as recently pointed out in [10], accounts of IDs in both L1 and L2 sentence processing can benefit from an integration of experiential factors. References: [1] Farmer, T. A., Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M.H. (2012). Individual differences in sentence processing. In M.J. Spivey, M.F. Joannisse, & K. McRae (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 353-364). Cambridge: CUP. [2] Roberts, L. (2012). Individual differences in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 62(2), 172-188. [3] Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity-based theory of comprehension: New frontiers of evidence and arguments. Psychological Review, 103, 773-803. [4] Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 422-433. [5] Waters, G.S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter (1992). Psychological Review, 103, 761-772. [6] Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44.2, 137-166. [7] MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 35–54. [8] Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 250–271. [9] Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The reading span test and its predictive power for reading comprehension ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 136–158. [10] Farmer, T., Fine, A.B., Misyak, J.B. & Christiansen, M.H. (2016). Reading span task performance, linguistic experience, and the processing of unexpected syntactic events. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(3), 413-433. [11] Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325–343. [12] Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49, 51–79. [13] Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning, 62, 302–331.