Cognitive🔢

Question 1

Working memory

Answer 1

Storage and processing of info in current moment

Question 2

Assumptions of multi component model and issues with them

Answer 2

Central executive allocates attention flexibly- no explanation on how, a homunculus explanation
Storage systems has two domain specific separate storage systems- may not be the case (see Vergauwe)
Episodic buffer binds info from sources, assumes different LTM and working memory area- Occam’s razor preferred (see Cowan and Oberauer)

Question 3

Multi component model

Testing domain specificity with complex span task

Answer 3

Assesses STORAGE and PROCESSING information
Remember letters and equations (combine verbal and visual spatial items, compare same and different domain performance)
R 1+3 Q 2+2 W

= lower recall for same domain processing and storage (e.g. verbal processing and verbal storage) as they are in conflict

Question 4

Multi component model

Testing domain specificity with complex span task PREVIOUS RESEARCH FINDINGS

Answer 4

previous studies used task combinations that varied in more aspects of task than representational domain (response modality required)- may have affected the results

Question 5

Multi component model

Vergauewe experiment

Answer 5

used task combinations that varied only in representational domain
Verbal storage- auditory non words locate sound on grid
Verbal processing- does it rhyme?
Visuo spatial storage- locate letter on grid
Visuo spatial processing-does it share axis of symmetry?
=found no differences between same and different domain combinations, MAY NOT BE 2 SEPARATE STORAGE SYSTEMS

Question 6

WM not separate to LTM researchers

Answer 6

Activation based models:

Cowan embedded process model
Oberauer Three embedded components model

Question 7

Cowan embedded process model

Answer 7

WM is a subset of representations of LTM

Inner circle- current WM contents is focus of attention
Outer circle- activated part of LTM

Question 8

Oberauer three embedded process model

Answer 8

Inner circle- NARROW focus of attention, one currently selected representation 3-5 elements, info needed at any moment
Inner circle-BROAD focus of attention, manipulate and recall single element, new structures from selected representations
Outer circle- ACTIVATED LTM info which could be relevant

Question 9

Three hypotheses on what limits working memory

Answer 9

DECAY- WM representations rapidly decay over time (Thorndike’s law of disuse)
INTERFERENCE- working memory limited by interference between representations (proactive and retroactive)
LIMITED RESOURCE- cannot hold representations

Question 10

Hypotheses on what limits working memory- DECAY restoration mechanisms

Answer 10

Rehearsal (verbal and numerical) repeat to maintain
Refresh (think of it) doesn’t need to be verbalised

Passage of time itself not responsible

Question 11

Hypotheses on what limits working memory- LIMITED RESOURCE Discrete and continuous

Answer 11

Discrete-allocation of resource to limited number of items

Continuous- equal spread of resource among items, fewer resource per item for longer array

Question 12

Variation in working memory

Answer 12

Capacity greater in older children, younger adults, healthy people, some younger adults
Average of 4 components in WM at normal distribution

Question 13

Issues with measuring variation of WM

Answer 13

Remember last 3 letters in sequence, update in WM BUT could also measure other abilities than WM

Task impurity problem- any task that assesses cognitive ability also demands other abilities needed to process the task

Question 14

Solution to issues with measuring variation of WM

Answer 14

LATENG VARIABLE MODELLING
Select multiple tasks that seem different on the surface but capture same target ability
Statistically extract what is common among those tasks
Use resulting variable as measure of target ability

Correlation between abilities= structure of human cognition, how abilities relate to each other

Question 15

What is WM related to (correlated)

Answer 15

Reasoning, attention, reading, vocab learning

-core human function

Question 16

Why we differ in WM

-Executive attention hypothesis

Answer 16

Executive attention key to success, top-down system underlies working memory and reasoning task performance
Executive attention >maintenance or disengagement>task performance

WM capacity and reasoning arise from limited executive function

Question 17

Executive attention hypothesis

Maintenance and disengagement

Answer 17

Maintenance- access to relevant info and add new info
Disengage- suppress outdated info, prevent returning to them

WM task mainly maintenance
Reasoning task mainly disengagement

Question 18

Why we differ in WM

-Binding hypothesis

Answer 18

Rapid formation of temporary binding underlies both WM and reasoning task performance. Construct and manipulative representations of novel structures
WM task- bind each object to position
Reasoning task- objects bound to semantic shape
Bindings are temporary links of content representations to mental system
WM capacity limited by amount of bindings at a time, bindings interfered more= perform worse at WM tasks

Question 19

Binding hypothesis evaluation

Answer 19

Bindings may be constructed and maintained with help if executive function
Difficult to directly test hypothesis against executive attention hypothesis

Question 20

Support for Cowan’s model

Answer 20

Makes more sense than computer metaphor (is not separate WM store)
Patterns of neural firing represent ideas when they are thought about like Cowan’s model)

Question 21

WM capacity and fluid intelligence

Answer 21

Strongly correlated
WM can facilitate reasoning through accurate maintenance of info, disengaged from outdated info
Change in cognitive performance can be mediated by enhanced WM capacity or efficiency (mechanisms of transfer)

Reasoning is not correlated

Question 22

Engel’s controlled attention model

Answer 22

Related to view of executive attention as central link between working memory and reasoning
WM is control of flow of thought, retrieved and stored in LTM

Question 23

Transfer in brain training

Answer 23

Improvements in practiced task leads to improvement in unpracticed task

Question 24

Ericcson practice experiment

Answer 24

230+hrs practice increased memory span from 7 to 79 in mnemonic system, seemingly no limit
BUT no transfer when switched to digits to letters (drooped to span around 6)

-when trained extensively, acquire strategies to help remember details, not useful for other aspects
Strategies are task specific and difficult to transfer

Question 25

Process based training

Answer 25

Repeated practice of specific tasks targeting cognitive processes e.g. daily practice complex span tasks assumed to transfer to other contexts (functional overlap)

Question 26

Functional overlap

Answer 26

Transfer expected if practiced and non practiced task shares underlying processes Variation in working memory related to other abilities, by enhancing WM we could improve a wide range of related cognitive abilities

Question 27

Training and near and far transfer

Answer 27

Practice- WM training Near transfer- transfer to untrained WM task Far transfer- transfer to different but related cognitive ability e.g. reasoning, expanded WM Training improves trained tasks but rarely transfer Transfer may occur through enhancing or efficiency

Question 28

Controls for testing effect of training

Answer 28

Performance at pretest compare to posttest Compared to control group Passive control-no intervention Active control-alternative intervention (hard to find something unrelated to WM)

Question 29

Training children with attention deficits like ADHD and evaluate

Answer 29

5 week training WM computerised tasks (visuo spatial, Raven’s progressive matrices)difficultly increased with improvement Tested improvements to active control Training group improved much more in both training (practice) and transfer BUT only 7 participants, may not be replicable

Question 30

Training children with attention deficits like ADHD | FOLLOW UP practiced/unpracticed tasks and evaluate

Answer 30

53 participants in randomised control trials, follow up 3 months after post test Training- Treatment group improved much more for practiced tasks Transfer- treatment group improved much more for unpracticed tasks HOWEVER values as post test and follow up were corrected for differences in baseline scores (improvements smaller really, in Raven’s task the control group caught up with treatment)

Question 31

Jaeggi training for non ADHD individuals

Answer 31

8-19 sessions vs PASSIVE control Dual n back training- harder task with higher amounts of stimuli Experimental group improved more in a transfer Raven’s task at posttest

Question 32

Redich training for non ADHD individuals (improved on Jaeggi)

Answer 32

WM training vs ACTIVE control Pretest, 10 training sessions, midtest, 10 training sessions, posttest Tested change in multiple tasks Found no significant transfer effects for spatial or verbal memory No significant far transfer effects for spatial reasoning -future tasks must demonstrate that near transfer can occur even when task specific overlap between training and transfer tasks is minimised

Question 33

How to explain inconsistent evidence of WM improvements and no differences when trained

Answer 33

Framework of multiple sources of variance ``` Intervention specific factors (training and transfer) Individual differences (training and transfer) transfer to observed effect Training and transfer interact ```

Question 34

Framework of multiple sources of variance Observed effect

Answer 34

Methodological issues Lack of active controls, placebo Single tasks used for measuring cognitive abilities, task impurity problem Small sample sizes and low statistical power

Question 35

Theoretical issues of WM training

Answer 35

Lack theoretical framework of training and transfer | Need theory explaining mechanisms of transfer to predict where we should observe effects

Question 36

2 mechanisms of transfer WM

Answer 36

Enchanced capacity- training increases number of elements held in WM. Training could lead to broad transfer effects Enhanced efficiency- assume training supports more efficient use of capacity through strategies or faster processing Training could lead to selective transfer effects Few studies differentiate between them but indicate efficiency is more likely

Question 37

Binding and updating WM study

Answer 37

Pretest, 20 sessions binding or updating or active control (visual search) post test Binding- overcome interference, say if you have seen a pair of numbers before Updating-memorise stimuli, manipulate info, apply operation and move location No near or far transfer for both binding and updating Large improvements in trained tasks Little evidence for change in WM processing but might be different for other WM tasks

Question 38

Who benefits most from WM training?

Answer 38

Large individual differences in training Magnification- those with higher ability YOUNGER ADULTS SHOW Compensation-those with lower ability No difference No evidence for differences in age, personality or gender determining it

Question 39

Factors on effectiveness of WM training

Answer 39

Type of training task- Cogmed has larger verbal near transfer effect but n back gives larger far transfer Intensive training- little effect, only small significant effect

Question 40

Different tests to establish WM

Answer 40

N back- processing (judgement about current item) Retention (number of items held in WM) Word and digit spans- only measure retention Complex span tasks- retention and processing

Question 41

What should researchers include in WM training studies

Answer 41

Multiple measures of abilities of interest Measure near transfer with valid WM capacity tasks that differ from method training Eliminate use of no contact control groups Raters blind to condition group