Working Memory Model Evaluation

Working Memory Model Evaluation

1. Research Evidence

   • Clinical evidence supports separate STM stores for visual and acoustic info
   • KF - suffered brain damage & had poor STM ability for verbal info but could process visual info
     • Suggests phonological loop was damages but VSSP remained intact
   • SC - generally good learning ability with the exception of learning word pairs read out loud to him
     • Suggests phonological loop was damages but VSSP remained intact
   • Case studies are unique to the individual therefore may be difficult to generalise and may not be reliable beyond the case study itself

2. Too Simplistic

   • Critics argue CE is too vague - more complex than currently represented
   • Baddeley
     • The CE is the most important but the least understood component of the WMM
   • CE needs to be more clearly defined than just 'attention'
   • Critics argue there are probably several CE
   • EVR - brain tumor removed and performed well on tests requiring reasoning (intact CE) but struggled to make a decision (damage to CE)
   • The fact that he could perform one task but not the other provides support for more than one CE

3. Methodology

   • Support for WMM comes from studies of Dual Task Performance (ability to do two different tasks better than two similar tasks at the same time)
   • Tasks lack mundane realism - ppts asked to track a light and describe the letter F
   • Little relevance to ppts therefore more likely to illicit DCs
   • Ppts less motivated to participate during procedure
   • Yerkes-Dodson Law - illustrated low anxiety arousal results in poor recall
   • Artificial tasks may be acting as an extraneous variable affecting the validity
   • May not reflect the function of STM in everyday memory situations