THE WORKING MODEL OF MEMORY
SPECIFICATION:
The working memory model: central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad and episodic buffer. Features of the model: coding and capacity.
A SUMMARY OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SENSORY, WORKING AND LONG-TERM MEMORY
CAPACITY
SENSORY MEMORY: VERY LARGE (SPERLING)
WORKING MEMORY: 7+0R -2 ( MILLER, JACOBS, BADDELEY)
LONG TERM MEMORY: INFINITE (ANOKHIN)
DURATION
SENSORY MEMORY: APPROXIMATELY 200-500 milliseconds, DEPENDING ON SENSE MODALITY (CROWDER)
WORKING MEMORY: 18-30 SECONDS (PETERSON &PETERSON)
LONG TERM MEMORY: INFINITE (BAHRICK)
ENCODING
SENSORY MEMORY: ICONIC, HAPTIC, ECHOIC, OLFACTORY, GUSTATORY (TRIESMAN)
WORKING MEMORY: ACOUSTIC AND VISUAL (BADDELEY)
LONG-TERM MEMORY: MOSTLY SEMANTIC BUT ALSO VISUAL AND ACOUSTIC (BADDELEY)
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL A01
A model of short-term memory by Baddeley and Hitch (1974 and updated in 2000).
For essays and examinations, it is worth noting that Baddeley and Hitch’s model did not address long-term memory (LTM) and was solely an account of how STM worked.
INTRODUCTION
As mentioned in the summary of Atkinson and Shiffrin’s theory, the contribution of multi-store models cannot be underestimated, as the memory was once considered a solitary function that resided somewhere in the brain. But ultimately, the three-store models were too unsophisticated to explain the extreme breadth of human memory. Thus, MSM’s biggest contribution was in creating more complex models, which ultimately paved the way for a much better understanding of human memory. One of those creations was the Working Model of Memory by Baddeley and Hitch (B&H), 1974, who revamped the concept of short-term memory.
At the forefront of their critique, Baddeley and Hitch challenged the traditional view of Short-Term Memory (STM) as merely a passive container holding 5-9 pieces of information. They questioned excluding cognitive processes such as consciousness, thinking, problem-solving, calculating, and deducting from the concept of STM. They argued that these processes also occur in STM, alongside the abilities to speak and memorize. Working Memory, as they proposed, has a limited capacity but is crucial for temporarily storing and manipulating information needed for complex tasks like comprehension, learning, and reasoning. Bruce Goldstein emphasizes that Working Memory is essential for daily functioning, enabling individuals to remain focused on tasks, resist distractions, and stay alert to their surroundings. It supports everyday activities such as driving, writing essays, and studying for exams. Working Memory comprises the phonological loop, the visuospatial sketchpad, and the central executive.
Following this reasoning, Baddeley and Hitch redefined STM as Working Memory, reflecting their view that STM is not merely a passive store but an active, dynamic process. This redefinition was part of a broader, more detailed theory they developed, known as the Working Memory Model, underscoring the active engagement of STM in cognitive tasks.
.*Most psychologists and academics refer to STM as working memory. STM is now only used by lay people as a term to describe working memory or to introductory psychology students new to memory theories!
Baddeley and Hitch's research into amnesiacs, including the case of KF, challenged the prevailing notion that Short-Term Memory (STM) functioned as a single, unified system. KF demonstrated the ability to transfer visual information from STM to Long-Term Memory (LTM) while struggling to do the same with linguistic information. This raised the question: could there be distinct systems for visual and linguistic STM? In response, Baddeley and Hitch proposed that STM was not a solitary store but consisted of multiple components. This theory was expanded by 2001 to include the Episodic Buffer, bringing the total to four key components within the Working Memory Model (WMM).
A critical aspect of Baddeley and Hitch’s model is the specialization of STM into linguistic/verbal and visual-spatial domains. This division is intuitively reasonable, considering everyday scenarios where individuals concurrently engage in tasks that require visual-spatial and linguistic processing. For example, navigating the environment while talking on the phone illustrates our capacity to simultaneously process and remember information across these two modalities. Suppose one can converse with someone new and later recall their appearance. In that case, it suggests that STM can handle multiple types of information concurrently, challenging the Multi-Store Model's (MSM) simpler view of a singular STM.
To show that humans can simultaneously manage two distinct Short-Term Memory (STM) or Working Memory tasks, Baddeley and Hitch introduced the concept of two specialized systems within STM: the Phonological Loop, which handles linguistic information, and the Visuospatial Sketchpad, dedicated to processing visual and spatial data. This distinction was pivotal in understanding how Working Memory can effectively juggle different types of information simultaneously, highlighting the complexity and adaptability of human memory functions.
The Phonological Loop, Baddeley and Hitch's linguistic system within Working Memory shares similarities with the Short-Term Memory described in Atkinson and Shiffrin’s Multi-Store Model, particularly regarding capacity, duration, and encoding. However, it is distinguished by its specific function of storing phonological information, such as the sounds of speech we hear, in a phonological store component. For instance, during a conversation, this system allows you to temporarily retain what someone else is saying long enough to formulate a response. Simultaneously, it also involves storing what you plan to say next—essentially, preparing words for speech—in a process Baddeley and Hitch identified as the articulatory process. This mechanism underlines the sophisticated way the brain manages words and sounds for effective communication.
The Visual-Spatial Sketchpad, the second system within Short-Term Memory (STM), is designed to store visual and spatial information temporarily. Often compared to an "inner eye," it enables us to represent the physical world around us mentally. For example, if tasked with counting the windows in your house, you would likely rely on a mental visualization of your home; this process utilizes what is known as the Visual-Spatial Sketchpad.
Adding to its complexity, the Visual-Spatial Sketchpad is subdivided into two main components. The first, dubbed the Inner Scribe, focuses on spatial information and movement dynamics. It plays a crucial role in understanding our position in time and space, aiding in tasks such as navigating to a classroom without colliding with obstacles like doors and people.
The second component, the Visual Cache, works closely with the Inner Scribe and is responsible for processing visual details like shape and colour. This distinction is significant, as it explains how individuals who are blind can still navigate their environments spatially, despite the absence of visual input. In contrast, sighted individuals utilize the Visual Cache to remember details about the appearance of objects they see. The Inner Scribe also helps by rehearsing information stored in the Visual Cache, ensuring it remains active and can be efficiently relayed to the Central Executive for further processing.
THE CENTRAL EXECUTIVE
Imagine you're conversing while skiing down a challenging black run under difficult conditions. The situation begs the question: could you continue to chat effortlessly, or would you find yourself needing to reallocate some of the capacity from your Phonological Loop (the linguistic system) to your Visio-Spatial Sketchpad (the visual system) to navigate the slopes effectively? This scenario prompts us to consider whether the Phonological Loop and the Visio-Spatial Sketchpad operate with equal capacities and durations or if there's a hierarchy of dominance where, for instance, linguistic tasks consistently take precedence over visual-spatial tasks.
The dilemma deepens further. Is allocating attention between these systems managed by another overarching memory system? This introduces the intriguing notion of a third system acting as a consciousness, capable of surveying the environment and directing STM resources—capacity or duration—towards the Visio-Spatial Sketchpad or the Phonological Loop as the situation demands. In scenarios where the physical environment becomes particularly challenging, such as skiing in darkness, this third system, the Central Executive, would prioritize the Visio system. It makes a judgment that navigating safely off the mountain is more crucial at that moment than continuing a conversation. This illustrates the Central Executive's role in dynamically managing our cognitive resources according to immediate priorities, ensuring safety and effective interaction with our surroundings.
Let's explore a few scenarios to understand further how our memory systems manage attention during multitasking:
SCENARIOS
A. Imagine solving a difficult algebra equation while learning a new dance routine.
B. Think about reciting a poem from memory while cycling.
C. Picture yourself driving down a narrow, treacherous mountain path while intensely debating climate change.
D. Consider swimming the butterfly stroke while counting backwards in twos.
QUESTIONS
Is it possible to perform both tasks simultaneously without one affecting the concentration required by the other?
For each scenario, identify the task that relies on phonological processing and the one that requires visuospatial processing.
For each scenario, decide whether:
Both tasks are easy.
Both tasks are challenging.
One task is challenging, while the other is easier.
ANSWERS
A complex algebra problem and learning a new dance simultaneously? It's unlikely. Both tasks demand significant attention, meaning the Central Executive must decide which task to focus on to avoid failing both.
Reciting a poem from memory while cycling? This might be manageable, as both tasks might not require excessive additional attention, allowing the Central Executive to distribute resources evenly.
Driving on a perilous mountain path while debating vigorously about climate change? Again, probably not. The complexity of both tasks means the Central Executive would have to prioritize, likely focusing more on driving to ensure safety.
Could a professional footballer execute a tackle while counting backwards in twos? In this case, the tasks could be managed with uneven attention. The physical task might not hamper the simple mental task of counting, suggesting the Central Executive can allocate resources differently based on task demands.
THE BOSS
The Working Memory Model comprises two "slave systems" overseen by a master controller known as the Central Executive. This setup positions the Phonological Loop and the visuospatial Sketchpad as subordinates to the Central Executive, which exercises control over them. This control extends to managing how much attention, capacity, and duration is allotted to each slave system. Decisions made by the Central Executive regarding allocating attention are tailored to the specific tasks at hand. For instance, in functions that are not particularly demanding, the Central Executive might distribute attention evenly across both systems, such as talking while walking. However, in scenarios where the tasks compete for resources from the same system, like texting while walking, the Central Executive might channel all resources to the articulatory loop for texting, potentially leading to a lapse in the visuospatial Sketchpad and causing the person to walk into a wall.
THE EPISODIC BUFFER
Baddeley and Hitch introduced the episodic buffer into the working memory model in 2000. It is an integrative component combining information from the model's other parts—the Phonological Loop, the Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad—and from Long-Term Memory (LTM). Its primary function is to provide a temporary storage system where different types of information can be held together in a unified, coherent episode or memory. This allows for a more comprehensive understanding and manipulation of information.
The Episodic Buffer is crucial for several cognitive processes, including comprehending complex narratives, problem-solving, and planning. It acts as a bridge between active working memory tasks and the broader expanse of long-term memories, helping to make sense of new information by contextualizing it within prior knowledge and experiences.
For example, when reading a story, the Episodic Buffer helps to maintain a mental representation of the plot by integrating the visual text from the page (processed by the visuo-spatial Sketchpad), the inner voice narrating the story (processed by the Phonological Loop), and the personal memories or knowledge related to the story's content (retrieved from LTM). This integrated approach enables individuals to follow the narrative, predict outcomes, and infer characters' motives.
Furthermore, the Episodic Buffer plays a role in the conscious experience of memory, allowing individuals to "re-live" past events by reconstructing episodes from various sensory inputs and emotional states stored in LTM. Its capacity to bind information into episodic memories is also thought to support the formation of new long-term memories, particularly those involving complex sequences of events or spatial-temporal contexts.
In summary, the Episodic Buffer is a critical component of working memory that facilitates the integration and manipulation of information across different domains, supporting complex cognitive tasks and contributing to the richness of human memory and experience.
WORKING MEMORY PLAYS A CRUCIAL ROLE IN YOUR DAILY LIFE
“The phonological loop is a component of our memory system with two essential parts: a storage area for holding words and sounds and a rehearsal mechanism that keeps this information from fading. Think of it as a mental workspace where sounds are kept alive by silently repeating them. This process is crucial for remembering a shopping list or a phone number. For instance, when someone learns a new phone number, they might repeat it to themselves repeatedly. Without this repetition, the number might never become long-term memory, which can be stored for future use. This aspect of memory is essential for everyday activities that require us to hold onto verbal information for a short while
The phonological loop deals with sound-based information, while the visuospatial sketchpad manages what we see and the physical layout of our environment. This part of our memory helps us create mental images when there's nothing in front of us, like picturing a beach on a sunny day. It's particularly handy for remembering where things are. For instance, it allows you to navigate your room in the dark, recalling where each piece of furniture is placed. Similarly, when someone asks about landmarks near your home, the visuospatial sketchpad allows you to visualize your neighbourhood and mentally describe what's around you.
The phonological loop is like our mind's audio player, holding onto words we hear or say, while the visuospatial sketchpad is like our mind's eye, picturing and placing objects in space. Imagine your electronic navigation system has failed, and you must navigate to your workplace without it. Automatically, your brain conjures up a mental map, using stored visuals to guide you directly to work. Similarly, when someone inquires about what's near your house, your mind's eye swiftly scans through a mental image, identifying and listing nearby landmarks like the corner shop, the local park, or the library. This innate ability ensures that even without a physical map or GPS, you can effortlessly navigate your surroundings and recall details about familiar locations.
Then there's the central executive, the conductor of our cognitive orchestra, overseeing both the audio player and the mind's eye. The part of our brain juggles tasks, deciding which information gets processed and when. So, when you're driving, and your phone starts ringing, the central executive reminds you to keep your eyes on the road rather than get swept up in conversation. It's all about managing attention and keeping priorities straight to ensure we can safely and efficiently handle our daily tasks.
When the phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and central executive team up, they enable us to navigate daily life easily. Working memory plays a crucial role in solving math problems, enjoying a novel, or understanding conversations. This system supports us at every stage of life, from learning the alphabet in our early years to mastering arithmetic in school and performing everyday tasks like getting to work. Working memory is a foundational tool that aids learning and functioning across the lifespan, helping us adapt and thrive from childhood to our senior years.”
RESEARCH
BADDELEY AND HITCH (1977):
BACKGROUND: The dual-task technique is an experimental cognitive research method conducted in a laboratory setting. Participants are instructed to perform a primary task while concurrently engaging in a secondary task. Performance is then compared to the performance of each task when conducted individually.
HYPOTHESIS
If the phonological loop span has a finite capacity of 2 seconds or 7 ± 2 digits, participants cannot perform two linguistic tasks simultaneously due to insufficient working memory (WM) space. This limitation occurs because the WM becomes fully occupied by one task, hindering its capacity to manipulate both tasks. WM is estimated to last approximately 2 seconds, which aligns with the time required to store seven plus or minus two digits.
DESIGN:
The study adopts a lab experiment with an independent group design.
IV: Learning two reasoning (linguistic) tasks simultaneously
Control condition/IV: Learning one reasoning (linguistic) task (the digit/letter array)
Control condition/IV: Learning one reasoning (linguistic) task (the true/false questionnaire)
OPERATIONALISATION:
Participants are tasked with managing two reasoning tasks simultaneously:
A. Learning a six-digit letter/number array B. Ticking true/false on a general knowledge quiz
The dependent variable (DV) is the capacity of working memory (WM), operationalized by task completion time and accuracy.
PARTICIPANTS: Approximately twenty students from Southeast London are recruited through an opportunity sample. Gender, ability, and ethnicity are varied, and participants are randomly allocated to conditions by drawing names from a hat.
PROCEDURES Participants perform a reasoning task while simultaneously reciting a list of six digits aloud. They are then divided into groups and randomly assigned to three conditions:
IV: Reciting the number/letter array while ticking true/false on a sheet
IV: Reciting the number/letter array
IV: Ticking true/false on the general knowledge questionnaire
FINDINGS: This study's findings revealed that participants' performance on the reasoning task was significantly impaired when they were required to recall a list of digits simultaneously. This impairment was particularly pronounced when the digit span was longer.
These results supported Baddeley and Hitch's Working Memory Model by demonstrating that engaging the phonological loop (verbal recall) interfered with performance on a concurrent reasoning task, indicating the limited capacity of working memory. This study provided empirical evidence for separate components within working memory and highlighted the role of the phonological loop in verbal processing tasks.
ROBBINS (1996) CHESS PLAYERS.
AIM: Study the role of the Central Executive in remembering chess positions by investigating the effect of generating random letter strings.
PROCEDURE Twenty chess players were given 10 seconds to remember the position of 16 pieces from a chess game.
When memorizing participants, either. Use the central executive by generating random number sequences while avoiding meaningful combinations (H, G, P). Carried out articulatory suppression task (said 'the, the, the' in time with a metronome)
After 10 seconds, memory was tested as ppts were asked to arrange the pieces as they first memorized them.
FINDINGS
The letter generation = poor memory and performance.
The articulatory suppression task = good memory and performance.
CONCLUSIONS: Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchanan (1975): This study provided evidence for the phonological loop by demonstrating that tasks requiring phonological processing interfered with each other. Participants were asked to perform two verbal tasks simultaneously, such as repeating a list of digits while memorizing a list of words. They found that performance on both tasks was impaired when they required similar phonological processing resources, supporting the concept of a phonological loop with limited capacity for processing speech-based information.
BADDELEY, GATHERCOLE, & PAPAGNO (1998): This study provided further evidence for the phonological loop by investigating individuals with impairments in phonological processing. Participants with dyslexia or other language impairments were asked to perform tasks requiring verbal working memory, such as repeating non-words. They found that individuals with phonological processing impairments had difficulty with these tasks, suggesting a specific deficit in the phonological loop.
SMITH & JONIDES (1999): In this study, Smith and Jonides used neuroimaging techniques to investigate brain activity during working memory tasks. Participants performed tasks requiring verbal or spatial working memory while undergoing PET scans. They found evidence for separate neural networks underlying verbal and spatial working memory, supporting the distinction between the phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad.
BUNGE ET AL. (2000) used MRI scanning to investigate brain activity patterns during single-task and dual-task performance. The findings revealed significantly increased brain activity when participants performed two tasks simultaneously, indicating a heightened demand for attention in such conditions.
PERHAM AND CURIE (2014) conducted a repeated-measures experiment to examine the impact of background music on reading comprehension tasks. Participants completed tasks while listening to different types of music (liked lyrical, disliked lyrical, instrumental, or no music). Results showed that test scores were highest in the no-music condition, followed by the instrumental music condition. Interestingly, performance was poorest when participants listened to lyrical music, regardless of their preference for the music type. Remarkably, participants accurately predicted that lyrical music would be distracting and impair their performance.
KLAUER & ZHAO (2004) provided empirical support for the distinction between the visual cache and inner scribe components within Baddeley and Hitch's Working Memory Model. Their research revealed that more interference occurred between two visual tasks than between visual and spatial tasks. This observation suggests that the visual cache and inner scribe are separate components, each with its distinct role. Specifically, the visual cache appears responsible for processing colour and form information, while the inner scribe encodes and maintains spatial relationships. PET scans also support these findings, with brain activation apparent in the left hemisphere when doing visual tasks and right hemisphere activity when doing spatial tasks. This supports the idea that the VSS is subdivided into a separate visual cache and inner scribe.
Several case studies of individuals with brain damage support the Working Memory Model proposed by Baddeley and Hitch. Here are a few notable examples:
KF (SHALLICE & WARRINGTON, 1970): KF was a patient who suffered damage to his left parietal lobe, resulting in deficits in short-term memory, particularly in the phonological loop. Despite this impairment, his long-term memory remained intact. This case provided evidence for the dissociation between short-term and long-term memory systems, supporting the idea of separate memory components proposed by the Working Memory Model.
PATIENT HM (MILNER, 1966): Patient HM had bilateral medial temporal lobe resection to treat severe epilepsy. As a result, he experienced profound anterograde and temporally graded retrograde amnesia, suggesting damage to his episodic memory system. However, as assessed by tasks like digit span, his working memory remained largely intact. This case supports separate memory systems, with working memory functioning independently of episodic memory.
CLIVE WEARING (WILSON & WEARING, 1997): Clive Wearing suffered from viral encephalitis, which resulted in extensive damage to his hippocampus and surrounding structures. As a consequence, he developed profound anterograde and retrograde amnesia, severely impairing his ability to form new memories and recall past events. However, his working memory for verbal and musical tasks remained relatively intact, indicating a dissociation between episodic memory and working memory.
EVALUATION
ADVANTAGES
Substantial evidence supports the idea of two slave systems within the Working Memory Model, as proposed by Baddeley and Hitch. This evidence comes from various sources, including case studies, experimental studies, and neuroimaging research:
Case Studies: Individuals with brain damage, such as Clive Wearing, have provided insights into the dissociation between different memory systems. Despite severe impairments in episodic memory, individuals like Clive Wearing demonstrate relatively preserved working memory abilities, suggesting the presence of distinct memory systems.
Experimental Studies: Studies utilizing dual-task paradigms have consistently shown that individuals struggle to perform two tasks simultaneously if both tasks rely on the same cognitive resources. For example, participants may have difficulty simultaneously completing a verbal reasoning task and a verbal memory task, indicating the limited capacity of the phonological loop.
Neuroimaging Research: Neuroimaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have revealed distinct neural networks underlying different components of working memory. For instance, studies have shown that verbal working memory tasks activate regions associated with language processing, while spatial working memory tasks activate regions involved in visuospatial processing. This supports the idea of separate neural substrates for the phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad.
SYNOPSIS OF RESEARCH:
The Working Memory Model (WMM) has been evaluated through various methods, including case studies, experimental studies, and brain scans. Each method has inherent flaws: case studies cannot be readily generalized to the broader population, experimental studies may lack mundane realism and ecological validity, and brain scans may not capture the full complexity of cognitive processes. However, when considered collectively, along with brain scan data, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the notion that working memory is not a singular unit.
APPLICATIONS TO THE REAL WORLD
The Working Memory Model (WMM) offers valuable insights that can be applied to various real-world scenarios, particularly in understanding and addressing cognitive challenges and educational difficulties. Here's how the WMM can be applied in different contexts:
Managing Mental Health Conditions: Individuals with anxiety disorders, OCD, Tourette's syndrome, and ADHD often experience difficulties related to the functioning of the central executive component of working memory. Understanding how working memory processes contribute to these conditions can inform therapeutic interventions. For example, cognitive-behavioural therapies may target attentional control and impulse regulation, mediated by the central executive, to alleviate symptoms and improve daily functioning.
Diagnosing Educational Difficulties: Poor working memory capacity has been associated with various educational difficulties, including dyslexia, dyspraxia, and other special educational needs (SEN). Identifying deficits in working memory can aid in diagnosing these conditions and tailoring educational interventions accordingly. For instance, students with dyslexia may benefit from strategies that reduce cognitive load during reading tasks, such as breaking down information into smaller chunks or providing visual aids to support comprehension.
Detecting Neurodegenerative Diseases: Changes in working memory performance can also be early indicators of neurodegenerative diseases like dementia. Assessments of working memory capacity and other cognitive functions can help clinicians diagnose and monitor the progression of such conditions. Early detection allows timely intervention and support to maintain cognitive function and quality of life.
Enhancing Learning and Teaching: Understanding how memories are encoded, retrieved, and processed can inform teaching practices to optimize learning outcomes. Educators can employ strategies to support working memory processes, such as chunking information, providing mnemonics, and promoting active engagement. Moreover, knowledge of attentional mechanisms can help teachers create learning environments that sustain students' attention and facilitate deeper learning experiences.
RELATION TO NEUROSCIENCE:
Research using neuroimaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and lesion studies has provided evidence supporting the association between specific brain regions and components of the Working Memory Model (WMM). Here are some examples:
Prefrontal Cortex and Central Executive: Studies using fMRI have consistently shown activation in the prefrontal cortex, particularly the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), during tasks involving executive functions and working memory. For instance, a study by Owen et al. (2005) demonstrated increased DLPFC activation during tasks requiring working memory maintenance and manipulation.
Phonological Loop and Left Hemisphere: Neuroimaging studies have identified brain regions associated with phonological processing and verbal working memory in the left hemisphere. For example, a study by Paulesu et al. (1993) used PET scans to show increased activity in the left superior temporal gyrus during phonological processing tasks.
Visuospatial Sketchpad and Occipital-Parietal Regions: Research has linked visuospatial working memory tasks to activation in the occipital and parietal regions of the brain. Using fMRI, Corbetta et al. (1995) studies have demonstrated increased activation in the posterior parietal cortex during visuospatial working memory tasks.
Episodic Buffer and Hippocampus: While the episodic buffer is a relatively newer concept in the WMM, research suggests it involves brain regions associated with episodic memory and multimodal integration. Studies such as that by Eichenbaum et al. (2007) have highlighted the role of the hippocampus in binding together different elements of an episode into a coherent memory representation.
These studies provide neuroscientific evidence supporting the association between specific brain regions and the Working Memory Model components, corroborating the theoretical framework proposed by Baddeley and Hitch.
The term "working memory" is now preferred over "short-term memory plus" (STM+) by most cognitive psychologists. This shift reflects a better understanding of cognitive processes involved in temporary storage and active information processing.
Can account for findings that are difficult for MSMs to explain: While the multi-store model heavily emphasizes rehearsal as the primary mechanism for retaining information in short-term memory (STM), the working memory model takes a more nuanced approach.
In the working memory model, rehearsal is acknowledged as one strategy for maintaining information in short-term storage, particularly within the phonological loop component. However, the model also highlights the importance of active processing and manipulation of data within working memory tasks. This active processing involves rehearsal and various cognitive processes such as reasoning, problem-solving, decision-making, and attentional control, which are mediated by the central executive component.
The working memory model provides a more comprehensive understanding of short-term memory processes by recognizing the role of active processing and transient information manipulation. It acknowledges that simply rehearsing information may not always be sufficient for retaining it in STM and that cognitive engagement and information manipulation play crucial roles in working memory tasks. This nuanced perspective aligns with empirical findings and offers a more accurate portrayal of the dynamic nature of human memory processes.
DISADVANTAGES
The critique regarding the inadequate explanation of musical memory within the working memory model is valid. The phenomenon where participants engage with instrumental music without experiencing interference in other cognitive tasks challenges the model's ability to account for the complexities of musical memory fully. This dissociation between musical memory and other cognitive processes highlights a gap in the model's explanatory power.
Berz and other critics rightfully point out this oversight, emphasizing the limitation in explaining musical memory within the framework of the working memory model. Musical memory involves various cognitive functions, such as melody recognition, rhythm perception, and harmonic processing, which interact in intricate ways. These processes often operate independently of general working memory functions.
The working memory model's failure to incorporate musical memory as a distinct component suggests a limitation in its ability to understand the mechanisms underlying musical cognition comprehensively. Considering the complexity of musical memory and its distinct cognitive processes, the model's inability to address these intricacies undermines its effectiveness in explaining how individuals encode, store, and retrieve musical information. Therefore, this critique sheds light on an important aspect where the model fails to capture the full spectrum of human memory processes.
Identifying the frontal lobe, particularly the prefrontal cortex, as the neural substrate associated with the Central Executive component of the working memory model has provided valuable insights. However, despite this progress, challenges persist in fully elucidating the precise functions and neural mechanisms of the Central Executive. One ongoing criticism is the oversimplification inherent in conceptualising the Central Executive as a singular, unitary component. While the frontal lobe, especially the prefrontal cortex, is implicated in executive functions such as attentional control, decision-making, and cognitive flexibility, research suggests that these functions may involve a distributed network of brain regions rather than a single executive centre. Moreover, different subregions may specialize in distinct executive processes within the prefrontal cortex, further complicating the picture.
Additionally, advancements in neuroimaging techniques have revealed that working memory tasks engage multiple brain regions beyond the frontal lobe, including parietal and temporal areas. This broader network involvement challenges the notion of a single, centralized executive system.
Therefore, while the frontal lobe plays a crucial role in executive functions and working memory processes, the complexity of these functions suggests that the Central Executive may involve a more distributed and interconnected neural network rather than a discrete anatomical structure. This ongoing debate underscores the need for further research to refine our understanding of the neural basis of the Central Executive and its role in working memory.
The study by Eslinger and colleagues, which centred on patient EVR, provides valuable insights into the functioning of the Central Executive component within the working memory model. Patient EVR had undergone surgical removal of a cerebral tumour, which allowed researchers to observe the effects of specific brain damage on cognitive processes. In their investigation, Eslinger et al. found that EVR performed well on tasks involving reasoning abilities, indicating that certain aspects of his mental functioning remained intact. However, he struggled with decision-making tasks. This discrepancy in performance suggested that EVR's brain damage selectively affected certain elements of executive functioning rather than causing a general impairment across all executive processes. By demonstrating this selective deficit in executive functioning, the study challenged the assumption within the working memory model that the Central Executive functions as a unitary system. Instead, it suggested that different components or subprocesses may contribute to distinct aspects of executive control, such as reasoning and decision-making. In essence, the study of patient EVR provided empirical evidence for the complexity and heterogeneity of executive functions, highlighting the need for a more nuanced understanding of the Central Executive within the framework of the working memory model.
Lieberman presents a compelling critique of the Working Memory Model (WMM), particularly concerning the visuospatial sketchpad (VSS) component. The WMM suggests that all spatial information is initially processed visually, which may not accurately represent the experiences of individuals without visual capabilities, such as blind individuals, who often demonstrate remarkable spatial awareness.
By advocating for separating the VSS into two distinct components—one dedicated to visual information and another to spatial processing—Lieberman highlights a potential oversight in the WMM. This proposed distinction acknowledges that spatial awareness can exist independently of visual input and suggests that spatial processing may involve mechanisms beyond visual perception alone.
Lieberman's critique underscores the importance of considering diverse experiences and cognitive abilities when conceptualizing memory systems. By refining the model to accommodate variations in sensory modalities and processing mechanisms, researchers can develop a more comprehensive understanding of working memory and its role in cognition.
One criticism of the working memory model (WMM) is its lack of clarity regarding how the two slave systems, the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad, integrate and contribute to a unified perceptual reality. While the WMM delineates these two slave systems as distinct components responsible for processing auditory and visual-spatial information, it does not adequately address how these processes interact to create a cohesive perception of the world.
The challenge lies in understanding how information from different modalities, such as spoken language and visual imagery, is coordinated and integrated within working memory. Critics argue that the model does not provide a clear mechanism for this integration or explain how the central executive component oversees and orchestrates the interaction between the slave systems to form a unified perceptual experience.
A significant critique of the Working Memory Model (WMM) is its narrow focus on short-term memory (STM) while neglecting to incorporate sensory memory (SM) and long-term memory (LTM). This omission limits the model's scope and renders it incomplete as a comprehensive representation of human memory processes.
Sensory memory serves as the initial stage of memory processing, temporarily holding incoming sensory information before it is either transferred to working memory or disregarded. By overlooking this crucial aspect of memory functioning, the WMM fails to account for how sensory input is initially perceived, processed, and selectively attended to before being encoded into working memory.
Furthermore, excluding long-term memory from the WMM neglects the mechanisms involved in storing and retrieving information over extended periods. Long-term memory plays a vital role in retaining vast knowledge and experiences over time, influencing cognitive processes such as learning, problem-solving, and decision-making. Ignoring LTM diminishes the model's explanatory power regarding how memories are consolidated, stored, and retrieved long-term.
The Episodic Buffer resolves this issue by acting as a relay station, facilitating the seamless integration of diverse types of information. Doing so allows for a more comprehensive representation of cognitive processes, particularly when continuous experiences or complex information must be processed.
Furthermore, the Episodic Buffer plays a key role in addressing the temporal aspect of memory. Unlike the other components of the WMM, which primarily focus on manipulating and maintaining information in the present moment, the Episodic Buffer enables individuals to maintain a sense of temporal continuity. This means it allows for encoding and retrieving memories that span time, thus contributing to our ability to perceive and remember events in a coherent chronological sequence.
Overall, the Episodic Buffer's introduction enhances the WMM's explanatory power by addressing critical limitations related to information integration, temporal processing, and the representation of continuous experiences. By incorporating this additional component, the model becomes more robust and better equipped to account for human cognition and memory complexities.
ESSAY WRITING
MARK SCHEME: WORKING MEMORY MODEL A01
· Identification of components of the model and brief outline of their function:
Likely Features are the three main components: central executive, coordinating the other two slave systems, involved in attention and higher mental processes. It has limited capacity and can process information in any mode.
The phonological loop is involved in holding speech-based information and articulatory control processes of inner speech.
Visuospatial scratchpad deals with visual/spatial information and is involved in pattern recognition and perception of movement.
Four statements are descriptions of different components of the working memory model:
Stores acoustically coded items for a short period.
Stores and deals with what items look like and their physical relationship.
Encodes data in terms of its meaning.
It acts as a form of attention and controls slave systems.
Components of the working memory model descriptions of components: phonological store, visuospatial sketch pad, articulatory process, central executive.
WORKING MEMORY MODEL ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
· Outline the working memory model (6 marks)
· Describe the strengths of the working memory model (4)
· Describe the weaknesses of the working memory model (4)
· Identify and explain one weakness of the working memory model (4 marks)
· Identify and explain one strength of the working memory model (4 marks)
· Outline and evaluate The Working Model of Memory (16 Marks)
· Discuss The Working Model (16 Marks)
FURTHER READING:
“The Universe Within” by Morton Hunt (Simon & Schuster, 1982)
“The 3-Pound Universe” by Judith Hooper and Dick Teresi (Dell Publishing Co, 1986)
“The Britannica Guide to the Brain” by Cordelia Fine (Robinson, 2008)
“Your Brain: The Missing Manual” by Matthew MacDonald (Pogue Press/O’Reilly, 2008)
https://writemypaperhub.com is a professional research paper writing website for ordering a unique academic project on human memory topics.
WEBSITES: Memory
(Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory (plus other links from there)
https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/memory/
How Human Memory Works (HowStuffWorks): http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/human-memory.htm
How Amnesia Works (HowStuffWorks): http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/amnesia.htm
Memory (Skeptic’s Dictionary): http://www.skepdic.com/memory.html
The Brain From Top To Bottom (McGill University): http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/
How Does Your Memory Work (BBC TV): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxVb6M8UPTQ
Memory – Structures and Functions (State University): http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2222/Memory-STRUCTURES-FUNCTIONS.html
FILMS:
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), Michel Gondry
Three Colors: Blue (1993), Krzysztof Kieślowski
Memento (2000), Christopher Nolan
FIFTY FIRST DATES
The Father [2021]
Still Alice (2014)
Away From Her (2007)
The Savages (2007)
The Notebook (2004)
A Song for Martin (2001)
Age Old Friends (1989)
Firefly Dreams (2001)
Iris: A Memoir of Iris Murdoch (2001
MEMORY TESTS
https://memtrax.com/test/
ASSESSMENT
Practice Quiz
Note: Select an answer for each question, then click the “Evaluate Quiz” button at the bottom of the page to check your answers.
One key difference between sensory and short-term memory is that
a. the information in sensory memory fades in one or two seconds, while short-term memories last several hours.
b. short-term memories can be described, while sensory memories cannot.
c. the quality and detail of sensory memory are far superior to those of short-term memory.
d. sensory memory stores auditory information, while short-term memory stores visual information.
The simplest way to maintain information in short-term memory is to repeat the information in a process called
a. chunking.
b. rehearsal.
c. revision.
d. recall.
Short-term memory is sometimes referred to as working memory because
a. to hold information in short-term memory, we must use it.
b. it takes effort to move information from sensory memory to short-term memory.
c. it is the only part of our memory system that we must actively engage to retrieve previously learned information.
d. creating short-term memories is a difficult task requiring a lot of practice.
An instructor gives her students a list of terms to memorize for their biology exam and immediately asks one student to recite them. Which terms will this student most likely recall from the list?
a. The student won’t recall any terms because he has not used rehearsal to encode them.
b. Since there was no delay in asking for the terms, the student will remember those at the end of the list, showing a recency effect.
c. Since there was no delay in asking for the terms, the student will remember those at the beginning of the list, showing a primacy effect.
d. The student will recall only those items to which he has attached some meaning, regardless of where they fall on the list.
An instructor gives her students a list of terms to memorize for their biology exam. After allowing the students three minutes to review the list, she asks one student to recite the terms from memory. What information will this student likely be able to recall from the list?
a. The student won’t recall any terms because he has not used rehearsal to encode them.
b. Since there was no delay in asking for the terms, the student will remember those at the end of the list, showing a recency effect.
c. Since there was a delay in asking for the terms, the student will remember those at the beginning of the list, showing a primacy effect.
d. The student will recall only those items to which he has attached some meaning, regardless of where they fall on the list.
Which of the following bits of information would be the easiest to chunk and thus encode?
a. 198274
b. IEKFES
c. 278392
d. XYZZYX
Which situation below describes the use of hierarchies for memorizing information?
a. Repeating each vocabulary term out loud five times and then reading its definition from the textbook
b. Organizing notes into three central themes and studying information about those themes
c. Writing down the definitions of every vocabulary term in the chapter and reading them out loud
d. Creating flashcards covering key concepts and reviewing the information until it is learned
Memory researchers define forgetting as the
a. inability to retain information in working memory long enough to use it.
b. sudden loss of information after head trauma.
c. inability to retrieve information from long-term memory.
d. process by which information is lost in transit from short-term memory to long-term memory.
Which situation describes the phenomenon of retroactive interference?
a. Samantha can’t recall what day of the week it is.
b. James keeps entering his old PIN with his new ATM card.
c. Darnell keeps referring to his old VCR as a Blu-ray player.
d. Frieda often calls her new boyfriend by her old boyfriend’s name.
Naming as many state capitals as possible requires engaging in
a. cued recall.
b. priming.
c. spreading activation.
d. free recall.
Which pair of words is most closely related to a semantic web?
a. Dog and cat
b. Dog and dig
c. Cat and cut
d. Cat and tiger
Jerome is shown pictures of five objects: a truck, a skyscraper, a cake, a lizard, and a pond. In which scenario is priming then utilized?
a. He is asked to list the photos he looked at and remembers only the cake, the lizard, and the pond.
b. He is told to remember the pictures and imagines a truck with a cake in the seat being driven by a lizard out of a pond and up the side of a skyscraper.
c. He is asked to describe something people eat for dessert, and he describes a chocolate cake.
d. He is asked to list the cards in the order he looks at them, and he remembers only the truck, the skyscraper, and the lizard.
The susceptibility of our memories to include false details that fit in with real details of an event is called the
a. priming effect.
b. interference effect.
c. tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon.
d. misinformation effect.
The method of loci is a mnemonic device that involves
a. thinking of a set of words that rhyme with the words you must memorize.
b. making a word out of the first letters of each term that you have to memorize.
c. mentally placing items to be remembered in some imaginary environment.
d. associating each word you must memorize with a set of pre-memorized words.
The tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon describes the experience of believing that you
a. have experienced something when you have not.
b. know something, but you are not able to articulate it.
c. heard someone say something when you did not.
d. know how to do something when, in fact, you do not.
Patient H.M., whose hippocampi and medial temporal lobes were removed, suffered from
a. anterograde amnesia.
b. confabulation.
c. retrograde amnesia.
d. Korsakoff’s syndrome.
A woman developed a tumour that diminished her ability to form new long-term memories. Though memory involves numerous parts of the brain, the part most likely affected by the tumour is the
a. thalamus.
b. hypothalamus.
c. cerebellum.
d. hippocampus.
Psychologists use the term _______ to describe memory for information that can be articulated, while _______ describes memory for information that aids the performance of tasks.
a. declarative; nondeclarative
b. nondeclarative; episodic
c. episodic; semantic
d. non-declarative; declarative
Which situation describes the use of episodic memory?
a. Belinda verified her identity over the phone by giving her date of birth.
b. Jim remembered the excitement of the birthday party his friends had planned for him.
c. Serena asked her teacher to name the capital of Mozambique.
d. Samir recalled that a Pan Am commercial jet had crashed over Scotland.
Semantic memories differ from episodic memories in that semantic memories
a. typically include very personal or emotion-laden information.
b. do not include any information about facts or word meanings.
c. do not include details about how information was learned.
d. include procedural information, like how to ride a bike.
Due to a lack of thiamine, people with Korsakoff’s syndrome develop cell loss in the
a. hippocampus.
b. basal ganglia.
c. mammillary bodies.
d. pons.
Information contained in non-declarative memory includes associations between stimuli that elicit behaviour. These associations are learned via
a. conditioning.
b. habituation.
c. observational learning.
d. procedural learning.
Neuroscience researchers often refer to the physical memory trace in the brain as the
a. engram.
b. hippocampus.
c. hypothalamus.
d. Hebbian synapse.
A Hebbian synapse is a theoretical relationship between two neurons in which the strength of the connection between neurons is a function of
a. when the presynaptic neuron receives information.
b. when the stimulation of both neurons can be extinguished.
c. how often does the presynaptic neuron cause the post-synaptic neuron to fire?
d. whether the postsynaptic neuron causes the presynaptic neuron to inhibit firing.
Long-term potentiation is the term neuroscientists use to describe long-lasting
a. deficits in memory from Korsakoff’s syndrome.
b. mnemonic potential.
c. synaptic inhibition.
d. strengthening of synaptic transmission.
