Memory - created from Mind Map

Página 1

Working Memory

Baddeley (1986)

Experimental Obs. point to 2 STM + LTM coding info in different ways

STM Info held in accoustic or speech based form. LTM coded in terms of meaning

Brown (1958) observed forgetting rates of briefly presented stimuli unusually rapid compared to better learned material, supporting idea that STM is more labile than LTM

Span of Immediate Memory is limited to a few items, whether digits/letters/words (Miller, 1956)

M. Span is longest sequence that can be recalled accurately after single presentation.

This evidence at time V. compelling. Led to the two store models, common features referred to as 'Modal Model' (Murdock, 1967)

Low limit on span suggested STM distinguishable from LTM on grounds of Ltd capacity

Main Assumptions of 'MM': 1:STM limited capacity store of short duration. 2: control processes like subvocal rehearsal can be used to keep info in STM. 3: Info in STM gradually transferred to LTM.

While Model Model popular, other authors argued that transient storage provided by STM crucial for cognitive activities.

In other words, STM behaves as some sort of working memory.

WORKING MEMORY AS MORE THAN STM?

Due to KF difficulties, Baddeley and Hitch (1974) made empirical investigation into whether STM acts as working memory.

Further evidence for a distinction between STM and working mem. came from studies of individual differences

They used Dual Task Paradigm

B & H (1974) drew 2 conclusions: 1: Common working Mem. system combines temp. info storage with ongoing mental operations. 2: Working memory includes an additional resource that is not shared with STM

Daneman & Carpenter (1980) argued that standard measures of STM like word span tax storage capacity but don't assess capacity to combine storage with ongoing processing operations

Daneman & Carpenter devised reading span task. They interpreted their findings as showing that WM Capacity is an important source of individual differences in language comprehension, the key characteristic of WM being combining temporary storage with information processing. In line with Baddeley and Hitch 1974.

A criticism of D & C approach was that their correlations might be an artifact of similarities in processing operations in the various tasks they use ( reading span/listening span & language comprehensionall involve language comprehension whereas wordspan does not.

So Turner & Engle (1989) devised an operation span task in which participants solved sets of arithmetical calculations. They found Operation span a superior predictor of reading comprehension than standard STM span inspite of involving dissimilar processing operations.

Their results therefore support idea of general working memory system that is common to a range of different activities involving the combination of info processing with temporary storage. Subsequent work by Engle et al (1999b) has shown that WM span more closely related to general intelligence than is STM

NEW MAP: STRUCTURE OF WORKING MEMORY

Attached Study Aids

Note - Atkinson & Shiffrin Modal Model of Memory 1971

Mind Map - STRUCTURE OF WORKING MEMORY

Long Term Memory

Autobiographical Memory

See Atkinson & Shifrin 1971 Modal Model of memory, attached.

Cognitive activities like sentence comprehension or problem solving.

Can gain insight into plausibility of this through trying to understand garden path sentences. Just and Carpenter (1992) argued one keeps several interpretations of sentence in working memory. Caplan and Waters (1999) proposed that comprehension draws on more specialised resources than working memory.

Modal model captures some important insights, but consensus was fleeting. One concern was whether various strands of evidence for distinguishing STM and LTM converged on a coherent account---eg. different ways of estimating capacity of STM gave different answers, and the reasons for this were unclear. Consequently a resurgence in interest in LTM (eg 'levels of processing approach' by Craik and Lockhart 1972) occurred. Another concern was whether STM does actually work as a working memory, Neuropsychological evidence from a patient KF (brain damaged) supported some interpretations of modal model but posed difficulties for it in other ways. pg 156 MTB.

People performed 2 tasks at same time. Logic is that 2 tasks will interfere with one another if they need access to a common resource and if their combined demands exceed its capacity. pg 156-157 MTB

1: The finding that an irrelevant STM task interferes with a range of cognitive tasks (supporting conc. 1)

2: When load on STM approached memory span and therefor filled short term storage capacity, there was no catastrophic breakdown in concurrent cognition (supporting conc. 2). pg 157 MTB

Logic is that if two tasks involve similar psychological processes, a person who performs well at one should do well on another. In statistical terms the two abilities should be positively correlated.

align_clippings_on_this_page_please

Memory

Annotations