lecture 16 - working memory - using memory in real time

Question 1

Working memory: Using memory in real time

Answer 1

Synopsis: Working memory refers to the system that brings perception, short-
, and long-term representations together to be used in service of goals

Question 2

the short term store that does everything

Answer 2

Atkinson and shiffrin referred to it as a temporary working memory

supposed to store memory in short term but can’t store a lot of info

also think it encompasses all sorts of control processes- things you may do to info to keep it active and prevent it from being forgotton and retrievable eg verbal rehearsal, recoding info, making desicions and engaging in retrieval strategies

This system is interfacing with motor systems capable of making responses so the end point of anything going through this working memory system/short term system would be generating the response that you ultimately have to make so the store needs more detail, needs to be divided up but how?

Question 3

How do we decide how to carve up the short-
term store?

Answer 3

• Which evidence is so
• 1) consistent and
• 2) robust that it cannot be ignored? effects are quite big, the effect is present under a variety of different circumstances
• These pieces of evidence are benchmarks (Oberauer, et al., 2018)
• Which evidence has theoretical leverage – i.e., strongly suggests a direction for a theory to take?

Question 4

Benchmark: On every test, accuracy declines
as set size ptp is trying to remember increases

Answer 4

• Regardless of what kind of
  information (e.g., letters, words,
  abstract images, etc.) - consistency
• Regardless of exactly what task is
  used eg serial recall tasks - simple version vs complex span version, recognition task, end back task, a change detection task - robustness
• Corollary: Retrieval also slows
  when more items are held - ptps fast when recalling a few items when reporting more items retrieval speed on average slows down
• Could reflect a capacity limit in
  working memory (e.g., 5-9 items of
  Miller, 1956, or 3-5 items of Cowan,
  2001)
  Oberauer et al., 2018

Question 5

Benchmark: You can do two different things at once (if one of them is remembering a list)

Answer 5

• Baddeley and Hitch (1974) measured reasoning performance while participants simultaneously
  remembered a list of numbers
• ptps had to do a verbal reasoning task - gave people sentences that they had to interpret that were kind of confusing and they did this while trying to remember a random list of digits that was either short like 1 or zero items or longer like up to 8 items
• If the STS is needed for holding things and doing things, loading STS with numbers should really hurt memory
• But it doesn’t.

orange line in graph reflects ptps error rates in the verbal reasoning task - looks fairly flat - about 5% errors at all times - length of digit list doesnt have an impact on verbal reasoning performance

the graph is from a paper that is critiquing baddeley and hitch and the researchers pointed out you might not be getting increased errors with remembering longer digit lists but something different is happening because these longer digit lists are making ptps take a long time to make these decisions - so when there are no digits to remember and you have to solves the verbal puzzle you are solving it in like 2.2 secs but as the number of digits that youre remembering increases particularly past four you see in the purple line of the graph a drastic increase in how long that reasoning is taking - is not the case that there’s no harm at all having to try to remember these digits while doing something else so the short-term store is needed for holding things and doing things loading the short term store with numbers should really hurt but this reasoning task performance doesn’t hurt that much, but it does make it slower

Question 6

Concurrent verbal and visual tasks interfere with each other (but not very much) - stryer and Johnson 2001

Answer 6

• Dual-task interference applied to a realistic driving task - asked ptps to do a verbal task that was similar to taking with someone on a mobile phone and doing a driving simulator task involving things like braking when you see an obstruction
• compared this to listening to the radio and making small adjustments to it while driving - there wasn’t much difference between the driving performance in speed or probability you missed something important when controlling the radio or not
• A verbal secondary task slightly increased the probability of an accident and slightly slowed reaction times - miss it 3% of time not on phone but 7% of time when on phone
• Though there is a cost to multi-tasking, it is smaller than expected

Question 6

Measuring working memory

Answer 6

• You measure the short-term store any time recall of novel information after a 1- ~10 second period is required
• Some tasks also require manipulating information
• E.g., do something to the remembered information (perform arithmetic on it, re- order it according to a rule)
• Some tasks attempt to control the rehearsal processes that relate to short-term storage
• Complex working memory span tasks: Get an item to remember eg digit, picture, then a stimulus to judge, then a memory item, etc. Try to remember the memory list while making the judgments. - list is not usually longer than 9 items
• Demonstration: Try to remember the positions of the white square in order while correctly answering the True/False arithmetic questions

Question 7

Complex working memory span tasks

Answer 7

• Memory items can be anything – words, letters, numbers, shapes, positions, whatever
  o Example was operation span (Turner & Engle, 1989)
• Judgment (or processing) task can be anything too: processing the content of a sentence, making a rhyme judgment, judging the symmetry of a visual image, counting the number of items onscreen, etc.
• Complex working memory span tasks have been used to test many hypotheses about what kinds of mental activity interfere with holding information in mind

Question 7

Benchmark findings from complex span tasks

Answer 7

• Participants recall less information than in simple serial recall tasks - as asking ptps to do something while remembering a list and interrupting the list as its being formed
• Performance is strongly correlated with many other tasks, including IQ tasks
• The more similar the judgment stimuli are to the memory items, the fewer memory items are recalled - Especially for verbal memory items (Shah & Miyake, 1996; Vergauwe et al., 2010) but verbal memory items are not very susceptible to interference from visual things
• With more difficult judgments (or time pressure), fewer memory items are recalled
• Altogether, suggests that the availability of rehearsal or control processes boosts apparent memory spans
• If there are multiple components in Atkinson and Shiffrin’s STS, then they can work together.

Question 8

Complex span tasks good predictors of cognitive ability

Answer 8

• Correlated with general intelligence
• Conway et al. (2001) asked participants to do dichotic listening - they wore headphones and one message in one ear and a different message in the other ear
• Attend to sounds in one ear, ignore the sounds in the other
• Cocktail party phenomenon - there are some things you wont notice if youre paying attention to one auditory message and there is other auditory stuff going on - one thing you might notice is if your name is said in the unattended channel by someone your ignoring - only 25% to 30% actually hear their name in that situation
• Who hears their name in the unattended ear? - would someone who wasn’t very good at paying attention to what they’re meant to be paying attention to notice their name or would it be someone with a really powerful short term memory that capable of remembering more than someone else maybe they would pay attention to what they are supposed to be paying attention to but also have some kind of spill-over extra attention so they would notice their name in the unattended channel
• they found that those who were doing relatively poorly at the complex span task and called them low span individuals and those that did well high span individuals
• high span individuals only 20% likely to notice their name in unattended channel
• low span individuals were 65% likely to notice their name in unattended channel
• suggets that complex span test is measuring the ability to focus on what you’re meant to be focusing on and exclude other things

Question 9

Can we increase working memory capacity?

Answer 9

• Working memory meant to be mental “workspace”
• So if functioning of working memory could be improved, then maybe this would improve cognitive functioning more generally
• “Far transfer” expected to improve academic learning, IQ, etc. - the improvement is transferring to something completely different as opposed to near transfer where if you learn to remember a list of one kind of items really well and then given another list of another kind of item you would remember it
• Though some studies found far-transfer, most do not
• Many of those finding transfer did not use “active” control groups – training could be a placebo
• Would be important to identify a theoretical reason why training would transfer

Question 10

The multiple-component model of working memory 1

Answer 10

• First proposed by Baddeley and Hitch, 1974 - thought short term store by A AND S is responsible for too much and to divide into pieces that are each responsible for something more specific
• Updates in 1986, 1999, 2000, 2012
• Proposes “joints” within Atkinson and Shiffrin’s STS for
• Verbal short-term memory
• Visual-spatial short-term memory - info in visual, spatial and haptic form = visa-spatial sketchpad
• phonological loop - has phonological store for holding verbal info - articulatory loop repeats it over and over internally
• Attention to short-term memories in these components
• also propose there is something that is controlling access to these store that can apply attention to them to keep info in them activated and help avoid interference with new info thats similar - Central Executive
• around 30 years ago added a connection to LTM = episodic buffer

diagram in notes - LOOK AT IT

Question 11

The multiple-component model of working memory 2

Answer 11

• Verbal storage distinct from reasoning (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)
• Visual storage must be distinct too - no interference if doing other stuff as long as not visual
• Problems:
• Difficult to explain communication between the components in sufficient detail - episodic buffer is between VSS AND PL how does info get from one to the other without the help of the CE, how is info integrated
• Neural plausibility? - is there one part of the brain doing PL stuff and other part doing VSS stuff?

Question 12

Embedded processes model - after Cowans model

Answer 12

• Not “stores”, but
  “states”
• Information not
  moved from place
  to place
• Level of activation
  of information
  changes
  Purple space= all of LTM
  diagram in notes
  the focus of attention isn’t a separate STM is the things that are most active within the activated space that are the focus of attention - this can change very rapidly like what thinking is

Question 13

How do different Working memory models handle benchmarks? 1 set size effects

Answer 13

Multiple-component model
* Set size effects: The system is additive
* Each component can hold some items independently of the others

Embedded-process model
* Set size effects: The focus of attention is limited to 3- 5 items
* (Or 1 item according to some alternatives)
* If materials are unfamiliar, can frequently see limits of 3-5 in results, no matter what kind of information

Verdict: Both have an explanation of the set size effect, but the embedded-process explanation is simpler

Question 14

How do different working memory models handle benchmarks? 2 - multitasking

Answer 14

Multiple-component model
* Multi-tasking
* Minimal interference when two tasks rely on different short-term stores
* Complex working memory spans tend to be higher when verbal memory is combined with non-verbal processing, vice-versa

Embedded-process model
* Multi-tasking
* Interference whenever two tasks need the focus of attention
* Complex spans always lower than simple spans though, showing that less is stored when processing is disrupted

Verdict: Neither explains multi-tasking extremely well, but the multiple-component model captures something important about usefulness of task distinctiveness

Question 15

How do Different working memory models Handle benchmarks? - 3 - individual differences in working memory

Answer 15

Multiple-component model
* Individual differences in working memory
* Besides unusual patients who seem able to do some kinds of tasks well and fail at others, there is not much evidence that functioning of individual components can differ individually
* Tests performed on unusual patients are not often controlled well enough to make conclusions as strong as those the Baddeley text describes

Embedded-process model
* Individual differences in working memory
* “Positive manifold” – everything correlates positively
* Including verbal and non-
verbal memory spans (whether simple or complex)
* Working memory is a subset of all memory, so this is natural

Verdict: Embedded processes handles typical individual differences patterns better

Question 16

summary

Answer 16

• We no longer think of “short-term” memory as just for holding information:
  working memory describes the processes engaged with what we are thinking about
  now
• Different models of working memory explain robust “benchmark” findings. Models
  are under active comparison for sorting out which ideas should go forward.
• Two proposed streams:
  o Basically Broadbent information processing: world -> sensory -> stm -> ltm
  o Information cycles into and out of conscious focus: world - > sensory & ltm in a graded fashion
• This is an active area of research, and ideas are changing (and researchers disagree)

Question 17

the modal model

Answer 17

• the modal model assumes that information comes in from the environment and is processed first by a parallel series of brief temporary sensory memory systems, including the iconic and echoic memory processes
• info then flows into the short term store which feeds info in and out of the long term store and acts as a working memory so selects and operates strategies for rehearsal and serves as a global workspace

🧠 Atkinson & Shiffrin’s Modal Model (1968)
Proposed a multi-store model: sensory memory → short-term memory (STM) → long-term memory (LTM).
Focused on rote rehearsal as the key mechanism for transferring info from STM to LTM.

❌ Key Criticisms:
Depth of Processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972):
Argued how material is processed (deep vs. shallow), not just time in STM, determines memory strength.
Neuropsychological Evidence (Shallice & Warrington, 1970):
Patient with severely impaired STM (digit span of 2) still had intact long-term learning and reasoning.
Contradicts the model’s claim that STM is essential for LTM transfer and complex cognition.
Real-life cases: patients with poor STM functioned well as a secretary, shopkeeper, or taxi driver (Vallar & Shallice, 1990).

📌 Conclusion
While influential, the modal model is too simplistic. STM is not always essential for LTM or for complex tasks, and processing depth matters more than duration

🧠 From Short-Term Memory (STM) to Working Memory
By the early 1970s, research showed STM was more complex than originally thought.
Experimental methods were evolving, but no single model explained all findings.
As a result, many researchers shifted focus to long-term memory (LTM), especially levels of processing and semantic memory.
🔄 Baddeley & Hitch (1974) – Rethinking STM
While the modal model was facing criticism, Baddeley and Hitch asked a key question:
What is the actual function of STM?
They proposed STM acts as a working memory system — used for reasoning, comprehension, and learning.
Experiment:
They simulated STM overload in participants (undergrads) by giving them a memory load task while also requiring them to perform cognitive tasks (e.g., reasoning).
If STM was truly central to cognition, these tasks should break down — but they didn’t, suggesting a more complex, multi-component system was at play.
📌 Conclusion
Baddeley & Hitch’s findings laid the foundation for the Working Memory Model, showing that STM isn’t just a passive store, but a system with multiple functions that supports higher-level cognition

🧠 Baddeley & Hitch (1974): Digit Span + Cognitive Tasks
Goal: Test if short-term memory (STM) functions as a working memory system—i.e., is it used for reasoning, learning, and comprehension?
Method:
Participants rehearsed digit sequences aloud (increasing memory load) while performing tasks like:
Reasoning (e.g., sentence verification),
Learning,
Comprehension.
Digit load ranged from 0 to 8 digits—well beyond typical memory span.
📊 Key Results:
Response time: Increased with digit load, but only moderately (~50% longer at 8 digits).
Accuracy: Remained stable (~5% error rate) regardless of load.
➡️ Interpretation:

STM interfered slightly with reasoning, but didn’t disrupt performance.
Suggests at least two systems at play:
One affected by digit span (likely a phonological loop),
One more resilient, handling cognitive processing (a central executive?).
🧩 Conclusion & Working Memory Model
STM is not just passive storage.
Introduced the term “Working Memory” to describe a multi-component system that:
Supports mental work (reasoning, learning, comprehension),
Handles simultaneous processing and storage,
Moves beyond the unitary STM model

Question 18

the multicomponent model

Answer 18

🧠 The Multicomponent Model of Working Memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)
🧩 Key Components:

Phonological Loop
Deals with verbal/auditory information (e.g., inner speech, sounds, word sequences).
Acts as a short-term store for spoken or written words through rehearsal.
Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad
Handles visual and spatial info (e.g., images, locations, movements).
Useful for mental imagery and navigating space (e.g., visualizing your house layout).
Central Executive
The attentional control system.
Directs focus, coordinates tasks, selects strategies, and manages both subsystems.
Has limited capacity and is essential for decision-making and multitasking.

🏠 Example to Understand the System:
“How many windows are in your house?”

You form a visual image → visuo-spatial sketchpad.
You count them silently → phonological loop.
You manage the process and strategy → central executive.
📌 Conclusion
This model moved beyond the idea of STM as a unitary store, proposing a flexible system with specialized subsystems that work together to support complex cognitive activities like reasoning, mental math, navigation, and language

Question 19

phonological loop

Answer 19

• a model of verbal STM
• assumes a temporary store and a verbal rehearsal process
• has not been replaced for over 40 years despite criticism

Question 20

what is the use of the phonological loop

Answer 20

🔁 What Is the Phonological Loop For?
Evidence:
Articulatory suppression (e.g., repeating “the the the”) disrupts verbal memory span.
Reduces digit span from ~7 to ~4–5 items (Larsen & Baddeley, 2003), showing rehearsal helps immediate recall.
Criticism:
Some argue this small benefit is not evolutionarily meaningful — e.g., “Did evolution prepare us for phone numbers?”
👩‍⚕️ Case Study: Patient PV (Vallar & Papagno)
PV had a severe phonological loop deficit (digit span of 2) but:
Normal intelligence and long-term memory
Good visual STM
Fluent language
Successfully ran a shop and raised a family
➡️ Key Finding: Despite near-normal functioning, PV had serious difficulty learning new foreign vocabulary.

📌 Conclusion
The phonological loop may not be critical for day-to-day life but is essential for language learning, especially new word acquisition.
Its evolutionary role likely supports vocabulary development, not phone number recall.

Question 21

functions of the phonological loop

Answer 21

🔁 Functions of the Phonological Loop

🧠 Initial Hypotheses
Language Comprehension
Proposed by Vallar & Baddeley (1987): loop may support understanding of long sentences by holding earlier words.
Supported weakly (e.g., PV struggled with long sentences), but not crucial for everyday understanding, so unlikely to be its primary function.
Language Learning
Stronger hypothesis: loop evolved to support vocabulary acquisition.
🧪 Evidence from Patient PV
Severe phonological loop deficit (digit span = 2), but:
Normal intelligence, visual memory, native language skills.
Struggled with learning foreign vocabulary (Russian–Italian word pairs).
No problem with native word–word pairs using semantic memory.
➡️ Suggests phonological loop is crucial for learning new word forms, not for semantic learning.

👥 Experimental Support from Healthy Adults
Articulatory suppression (blocking the loop) disrupted foreign word learning but not native word pairs (Papagno et al., 1991).
Impaired learning when:
Words were phonologically similar or long (Papagno & Vallar, 1992) – both affect the loop.
👧 Evidence from Children
Specific Language Impairment (SLI) children (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990):
Normal non-verbal IQ but delayed language development.
Performed poorly on nonword repetition (a task reliant on phonological STM).
Even worse than younger children with similar language level → suggests phonological loop deficit links to vocabulary delay.
Cambridge study: Strong correlation between:
Nonword repetition, vocabulary size, and language learning in 4–5-year-olds.
Vocabulary development predicted more by phonological memory than general intelligence.
Developmental shift:
Younger children rely on the loop to learn new words.
Older children increasingly use existing vocabulary to support further learning (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989; Baddeley et al., 1998).
🌍 Second Language Learning
Service (1992): Phonological STM predicted success in learning English in Finnish children.
Nicolay & Poncelet (2013): In French-speaking children in English immersion classes, phonological STM was the best predictor of vocabulary gains, especially early on.
Engel de Abreu & Gathercole (2012): Similar results in bilingual/trilingual Luxembourgish children.
📚 Broader Language Functions
Phonological loop also supports:
Grammar acquisition
Reading development
Used in dyslexia diagnosis (via nonword repetition tasks), though other factors are also involved.
✅ Key Conclusions
The phonological loop is essential for new word learning, especially:
In foreign language acquisition
During early language development
It plays a secondary role in grammar and reading.
Has strong evolutionary value in supporting human language development

Question 22

phonological loop and action control

Answer 22

🔁 The Phonological Loop and Action Control

🧠 Beyond Storage: The Loop Helps Control Action
The phonological loop isn’t just for holding information — it also plays a role in guiding behavior and task control (Miyake & Shah, 1999).
🧪 Key Study: Task Switching (Baddeley, Chincotta & Adlam, 2001)
Participants had to:
Add or subtract 1 from a series of digits (e.g., 5 → 6 or 4).
Perform tasks in alternating sequences (add, subtract, add…).
Do this with or without articulatory suppression (e.g., repeating a word aloud).
🔍 Findings:

Task switching slowed performance.
Articulatory suppression caused further slowing, but did not affect accuracy.
Suggests people use subvocal instructions (e.g., “add, subtract…”) to manage the task.
➡️ Conclusion: The loop helps maintain strategies or plans via verbal self-instruction, especially during complex or unfamiliar tasks.

🧑‍🏫 Support from Other Research
Similar effects found by:
Emerson & Miyake (2003)
Saeki & Saito (2004)
Saeki et al. (2013): Verbal strategies help with long-term task switching and resisting habitual responses.
🧑‍⚕️ Historical Insights: Luria & Vygotsky
Emphasized the use of verbal self-instruction in:
Behavior control in children
Rehabilitation of brain-injured patients
Sadly, their work has been under-recognized in modern cognitive psychology.
📌 Summary
The phonological loop supports action control by:
Enabling verbal planning and self-instruction
Aiding in maintaining task sequences
Supporting the central executive in complex task

Question 23

imagery and the visuospatial sketchpad

Answer 23

🧠 Imagery and the Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad 🖼️ What Is It? The visuo-spatial sketchpad is the component of working memory responsible for visual and spatial information. It supports tasks like mental imagery, spatial orientation, and describing visual scenes (e.g., imagining the Taj Mahal). 👁️ Individual Differences in Imagery People differ widely in reported vividness of visual imagery. Francis Galton (19th century): Asked people to recall their breakfast table—some described vivid visual scenes, others none at all. 🔍 Does Vivid Imagery = Better Visual Memory? Surprisingly, no clear link between vivid imagery and actual visual memory performance: Some studies even found worse visual memory in people reporting vivid imagery (Heuer et al., 1986). Likely because vividness is mistaken for accuracy—people may overtrust false memories that feel vivid. 🤔 Possible Explanations People may differ in: Subjective experience, How they describe their experiences, Or strategies used to access stored information (e.g., verbal vs. visual recall methods). ➡️ Like a computer showing the same data in different formats (graphical vs. numerical). 📌 Conclusion The visuo-spatial sketchpad underpins visual and spatial thought. Imagery vividness doesn’t guarantee memory accuracy, and subjective reports may reflect different retrieval styles rather than actual memory ability.

Question 24

image manipulation

Answer 24

Image Manipulation & the Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad 🔄 Mental Folding & Spatial Tasks Shepard & Feng (1972): Participants mentally folded 2D paper shapes to decide if arrows would meet. More imagined folds = longer response time, showing imagery is effortful and sequential. Tasks like these are used to assess spatial ability (e.g., for architects/engineers). Men typically perform better (Linn & Petersen, 1985), but training can reduce this gap: Hsi et al. (1997): A one-day strategy training course improved women’s performance and eliminated gender differences in a university graphics course. 🔠 Image Construction from Letters Finke & Pinker (1988): Task: Mentally combine rotated letters (e.g., J + rotated D = umbrella). Pearson, Logie & Gilhooly (1999): Participants combined basic shapes (e.g., triangle, square) to mentally create and name objects. Findings: Spatial tapping disrupted image construction → relies on visuo-spatial sketchpad. Articulatory suppression disrupted shape name recall → relies on phonological loop. Shows cooperation between sketchpad and loop in complex tasks. 🧮 Mental Abacus Use Hatano & Osawa (1983): Japanese abacus experts could mentally manipulate abacus beads for large calculations. Had digit spans of up to 16, but only for digits. Performance disrupted by spatial tasks, not articulatory suppression, proving reliance on visuo-spatial imagery. 🚗 Imagery Disrupts Spatial Performance Baddeley et al. (1973): Forming visual imagery while driving led to lane drifting — imagery interfered with real spatial processing. Lab tests showed: Spatial tasks disrupted spatial imagery, not visual judgments. Auditory spatial tracking disrupted spatial imagery, but brightness judgments did not (Baddeley & Lieberman, 1980). 🎨 Visual Imagery Aids Verbal Recall Interactive imagery (e.g., banana used as a violin bow) boosts memory for word pairs. But it’s vulnerable to visual interference: Irrelevant pictures, colors, or flickering patterns can disrupt visual recall (Logie, 1986; Quinn & McConnell, 1996). 📌 Key Takeaways The visuo-spatial sketchpad supports: Mental folding, object construction, spatial planning, and visual memory. It interacts with the phonological loop in complex tasks. Spatial and visual processes can interfere with each other, indicating they are functionally distinct. Imagery-based strategies enhance memory but are vulnerable to visual interference.

Question 25

central executive

Answer 25

The Central Executive (CE) A control system in working memory — not a storage unit. Directs attention, manages coordination of tasks, and allocates resources to the phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad. ⚙️ Model of Control: Norman & Shallice (1986) 🔄 Two modes of control: Automatic: Based on habits or routines (e.g., driving a familiar route). Requires little conscious effort. Supervisory Attentional System (SAS): Activated in novel, conflicting, or difficult situations (e.g., roadblock). Linked to the central executive. Supports goal-directed behavior and strategy switching. 🧪 Evidence from Brain-Damaged Patients Patient RR (Baddeley & Wilson, 1988): Bilateral frontal lobe damage → dysexecutive syndrome: Perseveration: Repeating incorrect actions despite knowing they’re wrong. Utilization behavior: Automatically using objects in the environment (e.g., drinking someone’s tea). Confabulation: False memories with full confidence (e.g., denying being married despite evidence). Indicates the frontal lobes are crucial for CE functions, especially attentional control and behavioral monitoring. ♟️ Chess Study – Robbins et al. (1996) Tested expert and novice players with concurrent tasks: Articulatory suppression (disrupts loop) → no effect. Spatial tapping (disrupts sketchpad) → moderate effect. Random number generation (disrupts CE) → major effect. CE and visuo-spatial sketchpad are both critical for planning and memory in chess. 🚗 Divided Attention: Driving & Phone Use Driving while talking to a passenger is usually safe because attention can shift naturally. Phone conversations are more dangerous: More cognitively demanding. Reduces driver’s ability to make judgments and assess risk (e.g., misjudging narrow gaps — Brown et al., 1969). Risk stems not from physical distraction, but from cognitive neglect. 🔄 Task Switching & Multitasking CE is important for switching between tasks, especially when: Tasks are novel or conflicting. Attention must be reallocated deliberately. However, not all switching relies solely on the CE: Some aspects can be automatic (Allport et al., 1994; Monsell, 2005). 📌 Key Roles of the Central Executive: Directing attention and managing strategies Inhibiting irrelevant responses Switching between tasks Monitoring and updating working memory Dividing attention across tasks

Question 26

the episodic buffer

Answer 26

he Episodic Buffer (Baddeley, 2000) 🧩 Why Was It Introduced? The original 3-component model (phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad, central executive) could not explain: Why sentence memory span (~15 words) exceeds phonological loop capacity (~5–7 words). How WM interacts with long-term memory (LTM). How complex visual images or semantic meaning are stored temporarily in WM. 🔄 What Is the Episodic Buffer? A limited-capacity storage system (~4 chunks) for integrated, multi-dimensional information. Combines inputs from: Phonological loop Visuo-spatial sketchpad LTM Perception Multimodal code: allows integration of verbal, visual, spatial, and semantic content into coherent “episodes”. 🔍 Binding & Consciousness Linked to conscious awareness (Baars, 1997): like a theatre stage where info is temporarily integrated and accessed. Enables: Creation of novel representations (e.g., imagining an elephant playing ice hockey). Chunking of sentences and binding of visual features into meaningful objects. 🔬 Key Studies Baddeley, Allen & Hitch (2006): Binding shape + color not significantly disrupted by executive load → suggests binding is automatic, not always executive-controlled. Baddeley, Hitch & Allen (2009): Binding of words into sentence chunks also resistant to attentional disruption. Conclusion: The episodic buffer may function more passively than first thought, with binding depending on content-specific systems (e.g., visual-attentional or linguistic). 🌉 Theoretical Importance Bridges the gap between: Storage-based models (e.g., Baddeley & Hitch, 1974) Attention-based models (e.g., Cowan, 1999) Stimulates research on how WM and LTM interact dynamically. 🧠 Updated Model Highlights Direct access to the buffer from: Phonological loop Visuo-spatial sketchpad LTM Possibly smell and taste (tentative) Suggests the buffer allows LTM knowledge (e.g., language, semantic memory) to enhance WM. ⚡ WM, LTM, and Action Working memory provides a flexible interface between: Perception Cognition LTM Action Not all stimuli require conscious WM processing: Emotional stimuli (e.g., spiders) can trigger reactions before conscious awareness (Öhman & Soares, 1994; LeDoux, 1996). 📌 Key Takeaways The episodic buffer: Integrates multi-modal info. Supports conscious binding of experiences. Facilitates WM–LTM interaction. Some binding processes are automatic, not reliant on executive control. WM is not a bottleneck — it is a dynamic system linking memory, perception, and action.

Question 27

individual differences in working memory

Answer 27

Individual Differences in Working Memory 🧪 Correlational Approach Instead of comparing groups, researchers study natural variation between individuals. Helps reveal how working memory (WM) relates to other cognitive abilities. 📖 Key Study: Daneman & Carpenter (1980) Developed the Reading Span Task: Participants read sentences aloud and recall the last word of each (e.g., pet, storms, years). Span = number of final words correctly recalled. Found that WM span strongly predicted prose comprehension. Follow-up review (Daneman & Merikle, 1996) of 74 studies confirmed consistent results: WM span outperformed simple STM tasks in predicting comprehension. 🎯 Other Cognitive Abilities Predicted by WM Span High-span individuals perform better in: Prose composition (Benton et al., 1984) Following complex instructions (Engle et al., 1991) Note-taking (Kiewra & Benton, 1988) Logic courses and programming (Kyllonen & Stephens, 1990; Shute, 1991) Reasoning and IQ tasks (Kyllonen & Christal, 1990): High correlation between WM capacity and fluid intelligence WM = more speed-based; IQ = more experience-based 🔍 Why Is WM So Predictive? Researchers aim to break WM into core components to identify: Which subsystems predict performance How WM relates to reasoning and intelligence 📊 Common Findings Most models emphasize: A central executive (attentional control system) Separate storage components for: Verbal material Visuo-spatial material ➡️ Broadly consistent with the Baddeley & Hitch multicomponent model. 🤝 Theoretical Convergence and Debate Most WM theories from individual differences align with the multicomponent model. Some, like Nelson Cowan’s model, focus more on activated LTM and attentional focus. Although they appear different, Baddeley argues the disagreement is more superficial than real. 📌 Key Takeaways WM span (especially complex span tasks) strongly predicts: Language comprehension Academic and reasoning performance Fluid intelligence WM consists of attentional control (executive) + storage systems, supporting the multicomponent framework. Differences in WM ability provide valuable insights into cognition and intelligence.

Question 28

alternative approaches to working memory

Answer 28

A major feature of the multicomponent model of working memory is that its approach is "bottom-up," beninnine with the study of verbal span and only later addressing the difficult questions of attentional control. Most alternative approaches have, on the contrary, taken a "top-down" approach, starting with the hard questions and being less concerned with the links to STM. A good example of this is Nelson Cowan's influential model.

Question 29

Cowans embedded processes model

Answer 29

Cowan’s Embedded Processes Model of Working Memory 🔄 Core Concept Working memory = “activated long-term memory (LTM)” controlled by attention (Cowan, 1999). Activation is temporary and decays unless maintained by: Attention Active verbal rehearsal 🔢 Capacity & Structure WM capacity is ~4 chunks, not 7 (Cowan, 2005), challenging Miller’s "magic number 7". Activated LTM can be multidimensional, much like Baddeley’s episodic buffer. Difference: Baddeley: info is downloaded into a separate buffer. Cowan: new representations are created within LTM itself. 🎯 Focus & Research Approach Cowan emphasizes: Attention, child development, and neuroimaging Baddeley emphasizes: Storage components, single-case neuropsychology, and the multicomponent structure 🤝 Points of Agreement Both accept: Attentional control is central (akin to the central executive) WM includes a link to recently activated LTM Both models seek to explain how WM and LTM interact dynamically 🧪 Model Comparison & Debate Adversarial collaboration (e.g., Doherty et al., 2019): Researchers from different models designed experiments to test predictions. Outcome: No clear winner — each model had some success. ⚠️ Main Criticisms & Controversy Cowan’s “activated LTM” model has faced pushback: Critics argue it lacks explanations for: Neuropsychological data (e.g., from brain-damaged patients) How repeated items are distinguished in sequences (Jackendoff’s “problem of two”) Norris (2017): Criticized Cowan for implying LTM can store sequences temporarily Suggested Cowan’s model just relabels STM as “special LTM” Cowan’s response (2019): Each memory sequence forms a new LTM representation But this was still seen by some (e.g., Norris) as semantics, not theory advancement ❓ Is Cowan’s “Special LTM” Equivalent to the Episodic Buffer? Cowan and Baddeley informally agree this is worth exploring Ongoing debate highlights similarities across models, despite terminological differences 📌 Key Takeaways Cowan sees WM as activated LTM under attentional control. Differs from Baddeley mainly in whether a separate episodic buffer is necessary. Despite apparent differences, both models: Emphasize the role of attention Recognize interaction between WM and LTM Reflect the complex, evolving nature of WM theory

Question 30

Engles inhibitory control model

Answer 30

🧠 Engle’s Inhibitory Control Model of Working Memory 🎯 Core Focus Engle emphasizes attentional control, particularly the ability to resist interference. Uses a dual-method approach: experimental + correlational (individual differences). Main goal: Identify underlying mechanisms behind why WM span predicts so many cognitive abilities. 🔢 Key Tasks Developed Operation Span (Turner & Engle, 1989): Participants solve math problems and remember words (e.g., Apple, 7 + 2 - 1 = ?). Like sentence span, this task predicts a wide range of cognitive abilities (e.g., reading, logic, programming). 🚫 Interference Resistance Hypothesis Low-span individuals struggle more with proactive interference (PI): Kane & Engle (2000): In a multi-list free recall task using repeated categories (e.g., animals), low-span participants were more disrupted by prior lists. Selective attention studies: Conway et al. (2001): Low-span participants more likely to notice their name in an unattended message — poor filtering of irrelevant info. 🔍 Nature of Inhibition Friedman & Miyake (2004) distinguish two types: Memory interference inhibition (e.g., resisting PI) Prepotent response inhibition (e.g., resisting reflexive eye movements) Both modestly linked to WM span, suggesting overlapping but distinct control functions. 🧩 Primary vs. Secondary Memory (Unsworth & Engle, 2007) Primary memory = short-term attentional storage (e.g., recency effect) Secondary memory = LTM search guided by cues Working memory reflects a combination of: Attentional control Item maintenance (primary memory) Cue-based retrieval (secondary memory) 🔁 Forgetting: Interference or Decay? Engle’s view: Forgetting is mostly due to interference. Alternative: Forgetting occurs due to decay, especially when attention is diverted. Supporting study: Baddeley et al. (1984): Retaining three consonants is disrupted by attentional distraction (e.g., backward counting), not just verbal suppression → suggests attentional refreshing is crucial. 🧠 Related Theories 📉 Barrouillet & Camos: Time-Based Resource-Sharing Tightly paced tasks prevent refreshing → stronger correlation with reading/math skills (Lépine et al., 2005). Argue WM requires attention switching between storage and processing. 🔄 Towse & Hitch: Task-Switching Hypothesis WM performance reflects switching attention between task demands and memory maintenance. 🚫 Interference Model Lewandowsky & Oberauer (2008): Argue against decay; claim interference is the sole source of forgetting. Ongoing debate between decay vs. interference models. 🧠 Recent Advanced Models Oberauer & Hein (2012): WM has a limited focus of attention — only one item at a time. Distinction between: Declarative WM: conscious (like episodic buffer?) Procedural WM: unconscious (like processes in loop/sketchpad?) Model includes specific mechanisms but is still under evaluation. 📌 Key Takeaways WM span reflects executive attention, especially: Interference control Focus maintenance Dynamic switching High-span individuals are better at: Filtering distractions Overcoming interference Managing multiple task demands Engle’s model aligns with aspects of Baddeley’s central executive but emphasizes inhibition and attention over modular storage systems.

Question 31

can working memory be trained

Answer 31

Can Working Memory Be Trained? 🎮 Early Optimism – Cogmed Training (Klingberg) Cogmed: WM training program developed by Klingberg; game-like interface with extended sessions. Klingberg et al. (2005): Trained children with ADHD and matched controls. Found improvements in: Untrained WM tasks Raven’s Matrices (nonverbal IQ) Neuroimaging findings: Practice increased activation in frontal & parietal cortex (Olesen et al., 2004). WM performance linked to prefrontal cortex & basal ganglia (McNab & Klingberg, 2008). 📉 Mixed Evidence and Skepticism Melby-Lervåg & Hulme (2013) meta-analysis: 30 well-designed studies. Found short-term gains and some transfer to similar tasks. No strong evidence for: Long-term effects Verbal WM improvement Academic or real-life benefits Shipstead, Redick & Engle (2012): Question generalization beyond the lab. Argue training may not improve WM itself, but rather task-specific skills. ⚖️ Balanced Perspective – Gathercole et al. (2012, 2019) Point out that applied research takes time to move from concept to effective intervention. Initial studies (e.g., Holmes et al., 2010) showed transfer to WM tasks, not to IQ or school performance. Training helps when the same cognitive routine is needed in both training and transfer tasks. ⚙️ Cognitive Routine Hypothesis (Anderson’s Model) Training develops task-specific cognitive routines (e.g., encoding, manipulation). Transfer only occurs when: Both training and transfer tasks share these routines. No transfer when routines are overlearned (e.g., verbal rehearsal). 🔎 Gathercole et al. (2019) analysis: Reviewed 117 studies, analyzed 23 high-quality ones. Found transfer occurs when: The new task requires the same novel routine as the training task (e.g., backward span, complex span). Little transfer when: Training involved skills already automated. 👥 Who Benefits Most? High performers tend to benefit more from WM training. Possible reason: greater executive capacity allows better adaptation to new tasks. Challenges the assumption that low performers benefit more from “learning to learn.” 🧩 Broader Implications WM training improves routines, not overall WM capacity. Limited generalization to complex real-world tasks (e.g., academic learning). Suggests a need to identify specific subskills that can be trained effectively (e.g., Hsi et al., 1997, spatial strategy training in female engineers). 🔗 Theoretical Significance Bridges multicomponent WM theory (Baddeley) with skill-based learning models (Anderson’s production systems). Emphasizes task analysis and shared cognitive structures between tasks as key to effective training. 📌 Key Takeaways Short-term training effects on WM are real but often task-specific. Limited evidence for improving general intelligence or academic performance. Effective transfer depends on shared cognitive routines between training and transfer tasks. Future training may target specific subcomponents of real-world cognitive skills for better practical outcomes.

Question 32

the neuroscience of working memory

Answer 32

a great deal of work has been concerned with investigating the anatomical and neurophysiological basis of working memory. Initially, this approach relied principally on patient-based neuropsychological evidence; more recently however the field has been dominated by neuroimaging studies based on healthy human participants.

Question 33

neuroimaging working memory

Answer 33

Neuroimaging and Working Memory: Summary 🔍 Overview Neuroimaging techniques, particularly PET and fMRI, have provided insight into the brain areas involved in working memory (WM), supporting psychological models with biological evidence. 🗣️ Phonological Loop Evidence Paulesu et al. (1993): Identified two key regions: Left parietal-temporal junction (phonological storage). Broca’s area (subvocal rehearsal). Supported Baddeley's phonological loop model. 🖼️ Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad Smith, Jonides & Koeppe (1996): Verbal WM: Activated left hemisphere (language areas). Visual-spatial WM: Activated right hemisphere. Showed a dorsal-ventral dissociation: Dorsal areas: spatial memory ("where"). Ventral areas: object/form memory ("what"). 🧠 Executive Control and the Frontal Lobes Executive functions tied to the frontal lobes, especially the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Posner: Distinguished between alerting, orienting, and executive control attention systems. Bush et al. (2000) and Alexander et al. (2005): ACC is crucial in effortful control and response inhibition. Duncan & Owen (2000): Found multiple tasks (e.g. novelty, WM load) activated overlapping frontal regions, suggesting a shared general intelligence (g) mechanism. 🔬 Advanced Techniques – MVPA (Multi-Voxel Pattern Analysis) Harrison & Tong (2009): Showed that WM contents (e.g. color/orientation) could be decoded from visual cortex activity, supporting the idea of attentional refreshing. Lewis-Peacock et al. (2008, 2012): Demonstrated that stimulus-specific brain areas stay active during WM delays. Disruption by distractors shifted activity but did not eliminate memory, suggesting active attention is not always required for storage. 🧪 Integration of Psychological Models & Neuroscience Some interpret WM as activated long-term memory (LTM + sensory reactivation). Others (e.g., D’Esposito & Postle, 2015) argue for a broader executive network: Prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, thalamus support central executive processes. Eriksson et al. (2015) and Nee et al. (2013): No consistent mapping of processing types to specific brain areas; WM is a distributed system. 📊 Task Complexity and Brain Activation Owen et al. (2005): Meta-analysis of N-back studies showed activation across eight different brain regions, highlighting the complexity and task-dependence of WM. 🧩 Key Takeaways Working memory involves a distributed network including frontal, parietal, and sensory-specific areas. Brain activity patterns during WM reflect both storage and control processes. Neuroimaging supports many aspects of the multicomponent model but also reveals non-localized and dynamic interactions.

Question 34

conclusion

Answer 34

Conclusion: The Multicomponent Model of Working Memory 🔧 Enduring Framework The multicomponent model (developed by Baddeley over 40+ years) has evolved, but its core structure—phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, central executive, and episodic buffer—remains intact. It serves as a conceptual “map”: guiding research by organizing knowledge and prompting useful questions, rather than being falsified by a single negative result. 🧭 Flexible and Expanding Like a map, revisions and refinements are welcomed when evidence reveals new “terrain.” Negative results are not failures, but opportunities to improve and deepen the model. 🌍 Broad Applicability The model is intentionally practical, originally developed for applications like telephony. Strongly influenced by neuropsychological case studies, it has informed the development of clinically useful memory tests. 🏥 Real-World Uses Applied to diverse areas such as: Child development Aging and education Learning disorders and stress Skill acquisition and arithmetic Music and clinical disorders (e.g., Alzheimer’s, parasitic infection) Demonstrates utility beyond lab settings, enhancing its theoretical and applied value. 🧪 Theoretical Strength Meets Lakatos' (1970) criterion for a good theory: productive (generates research) rather than just defensive (protecting itself). Future theories may refine its components, but the multicomponent model remains robust and influential for now.

Question 35

summary

Answer 35

Working memory is a system that combines temporary storage and executive processing in order to help perform a range of complex cognitive activities. The multicomponent model of Baddeley and Hitch tries to combine storage and processing. It has four components: the phonological loop; the visuo-spatial sketchpad; the central executive; and the episodic buffer. The phonological loop provides temporary storage for verbal/acoustic material. The visuo-spatial sketchpad stores information from visual and spatial coding. The central executive is an attentionally limited system that provides overall control. The episodic buffer involves a passive multidimensional store that is accessible to conscious awareness. An alternative approach is that proposed by Cowan who sees working memory as reflecting a limited attentional capacity focused on activated representations in LTM. While this is often seen as incompatible with the multicomponent model, this depends on the assumptions regarding the nature of the role of activated LTM. Differences can potentially be seen as those of emphasis and focus, rather than fundamental. Much of the work on the executive control of working memory has used correlational measures based on individual differences, sometimes in combination with experimental methods. Influential in the area is the work of Engle and colleagues who emphasize the role of working memory in inhibiting potentially distracting material and facilitating retrieval from LTM. Other approaches such as that of Barrouillet and Camos emphasize the role of attentional maintenance in WM. Most agree with Cowan that the capacity of WM is about four chunks. Educational application of WM raises the question as to whether WM can be trained. Neuroscience approaches to WM extend from single-cell recording in monkeys to neuroimaging. Studies using fMRI suggest the joint activation of areas responsible for perception, LTM, and executive control when performing WM tasks. The question arises of whether such areas are essential to WM, or simply reflect a high degree of connectivity between these areas within the brain. Studies using MVPA show ongoing activation of brain areas specific to the material being retained. However, this appears to represent the focus of attention but is not necessary for successful retention. A major source of support for the multicomponent model stems from its wide applicability beyond the psychological laboratory.

Question 36

“The Many Faces of Working Memory and Short-Term Storage” by Nelson Cowan (2016)

Answer 36

urpose of the Article Cowan addresses the confusion around working memory (WM) and short-term storage by reviewing nine different definitions used in cognitive psychology. The aim is to clarify terminology to improve scientific communication and research interpretation. 🧠 Key Concepts & Definitions 1. Working Memory (WM): Generally refers to a limited capacity system for temporarily holding information accessible for cognitive tasks like reasoning, learning, and comprehension. 2. Short-Term Storage (STS): Refers to passive retention of information without ongoing attention or processing—often a subset or component of WM. 🔍 Nine Definitions of Working Memory (Tabled in Article) # Name Description 1 Computer WM A temporary workspace in computers—analogous but more flexible than human WM. 2 Life-Planning WM Holds goals/subgoals in a hierarchy for guiding behavior. 3 Multicomponent WM (Baddeley & Hitch) Includes central executive + phonological loop + visuospatial sketchpad. 4 Recent-Event WM Tracks recent behavior/events (used in animal research). 5 Storage-and-Processing WM Combines passive storage + active processing; used in complex span tasks. 6 Generic WM Temporary, accessible information for processing without specifying modules. 7 Long-Term WM Skilled-based memory structures stored in long-term memory (Ericsson & Kintsch). 8 Attention-Control WM Emphasizes attentional control over stored information (Engle's model). 9 Inclusive WM Includes both short-term storage and retrieval from long-term memory (Unsworth & Engle). 🧩 Major Themes & Insights 🔄 Definition Confusion Different theories blend with definitions, causing miscommunication in research. The term “WM” is theory-laden, and different researchers use it to mean different things. 🎓 Impact on Research Misunderstandings about what "WM" means have affected how experiments are interpreted, especially when comparing across studies. For example, debates about whether attention or storage capacity limits WM stem from differing definitions. 🧪 Illustrative Examples Complex span tasks (e.g., reading span) emphasize both storage and processing. Simple span tasks (e.g., digit span) often reflect short-term storage only. Both can correlate with cognitive abilities—challenging strict storage+processing definitions. 🧠 Key Takeaways for Exam Success Know the nine definitions and what distinguishes them (e.g., passive vs active, inclusion of attention or LTM, etc.). Understand Baddeley & Hitch’s model—it's foundational and widely cited. Be aware of controversies, like the role of rehearsal, attention, and decay in WM. Recognize that definitions shape experimental interpretation and cognitive models. Use terms precisely in your writing and explain which WM concept you're referencing.