Evaluation of working memory model

Evaluation of working memory model

1. Supporting evidence from dual task studies

   • Baddeley et al found that participants had difficulty visually tracking a light whilst describing a shape.
     • Shows that the competition for the visuo-spatial sketchpad impaired performance
       • CASE STUDY OF KF
         • Brain damaged - processing of visual info was strong, processing and recall of verbal info was weak.
           • Suggests that his phonological loop was damaged yet his visuo-spatial sketchpad was intact
             • Strong evidence for working memory model
     • Participants had no difficulty doing a verbal task alongside a visual task; phonological loop is a separate sub-component which can be used simultaneously.

2. Case studies of brain damaged patients can be criticised

   • Studies of only one individual who has a unique form of brain damaged
     • Conclusions are not representative of all patients of brain damage
   • LOW GENERALISABILITY

3. Lack of detail about the central executive

   • Unsatisfactory explanation about how to allocates resources.

4. Improves upon the multi-store model. More in depth consideration of the functioning of the StM and its components

5. The fact that the episodic buffer wasn't added until 2000 shows that its still valued

   • Or is it incomplete?