WM 1 - theories and models Flashcards
working memory definition
storage and processing of information in the present moment
how is working memory an ability?
- ability to hold goal-relevant info actively
- hold info for an ongoing task in the physical absence of this info
- core of cognition
- flexible workspace in which thoughts can be held
- guide behaviour
what is flexibility?
- we can hold anything we want in working memory
- make arbitrary relationships between items
the limit to working memory
- cannot hold too much info in working memory
working memory experiments
- can test:
–> encoding
–> retention interval
–> retrieval - typically asked to recall items in order or perhaps in reverse
compare working memory with long term memory
- working memory:
–> active (easily accessible)
–> relevant to goal/task
–> immediate use
–> limited capacity - long term memory
–> remote (needs to be cued)
–> everything learned/remembered
–> permanent (ish)
–> unlimited
key facts about the multicomponent model
- central executive as homunculus
- domain-specific vs domain-general maintenance of representations
- working memory with an episodic buffer vs. activated part of long-term memory
examples of activation based models
- Cowan’s (1995) embedded-processes model
- Oberauer’s (2009) three-embedded components model
Summarise Baddeley and Hitch’s WM model (1974)
- Hierarchical organisation
- Multiple components with functional responsibilities
- Interaction of attention
–> LTM with present stimuli
central executive role
Coordination of storage systems and control of attention to stimuli
visuospatial sketchpad and phonological loop
- Separate storage of visuospatial and auditory information
–> visuospatial = visual info
–> phonological loop = auditory info
–> do not interact except for episodic buffer (process separately) - taste/smell/touch not formal components but have to suggest that they are processed somehow
–> likely to be linked to multiple components of the model
episodic buffer
- interacts with long term memory
–> passes info back and forth
–> bring info to present
–> move info to LTM - binding multimodal info to form episodic memories
–> info being processed by all components are brought together into a coherent thought or experience
Long term memory
info passes to and from the working memory
phonological loop
- phonological long term store
–> reading words are converted into phonological representations and enter our phonological store (orthographic become phonological) - subvocal rehearsal
–> rehearsing info over and over to try and remember info
–> use the articulatory loop
–> then enters storage and stays in storage
word length effect
- recall in Working Memory is a function of time
- can remember the number of words that we can articulate in approximately 2 seconds
- if we cannot ‘refresh’ (i.e. rehearse) the items in the phonological store within 2 seconds they decay
- recall more short words than long words
–> long words take longer to articulate (say/sub-vocalise)
examples of word length effect
- Welsh
–> can recall more English than Welsh digits
–> Welsh digits have longer spoken duration - Chinese
–> better Chinese digit span
–> Chinese digits have short spoken duration - language can have profound impact on memory
word length effect and articulatory suppression
- the uttering of an irrelevant word (e.g. the) whilst being presented with words to remember
- articulatory suppression abolishes the word-length effect with visual presentation
–> participants can’t transform words into phonological codes - word-length effect not abolished with auditory presentation presumably as words enter straight into the phonological store
- suggests that suppression occupies the articulatory control processes (for visual presentation) but does not prevent direct access to phonological store (for auditory presentation)
the irrelevant speech effect
- words picked up in background noise take up resources in working memory
- the stimuli we want to focus on loses resources
- can still have an effect even if background language is foreign
- e.g. studying is best in silence, moderate with instrumental music and worst with vocal music
phonological similarity effect
- the tendency for recall to be depressed where the items ‘sound’ similar in working memory
–> not necessarily when they rhyme
–> worst for alliterative words
–> even worse when they are alliterative AND rhyme - semantic similarity =
words that are similar in meaning have no impact on working memory - suggests coding is Phonological
the lexicality effect
- when phonologically similar words are in important sentences however, it can AID recall
- opposite of the phonological similarity effect
semantic similarity Kowialiewski & Marjerus (2020)
- assessed recall for semantically related words and semantically unrelated words
- with interference (backwards counting task between encoding and recall)
- AND WITHOUT interference
results of Kowialiewski & Marjerus (2020)
- semantic relatedness improves recall
- seems to have preservative role against interference
- inconsistent with previous findings for multi-component model
evidence of phonological loop in deaf signers
- evidence suggests the phonological loop exists for deaf signers
- Wilson and Emmorey also observed the four signature effects on deaf signers immediate serial recall of signs:
1. phonological similarity effect
2. word-length effect
3. articulatory suppression effect
4. irrelevant speech effect - proposed sign-based phonological loop
–> the Sign Loop
two elements in the sign loop
- sign-based phonological store
–> sign based phonological codes
–> e.g. hand shape, orientation, location, movement - manual articulatory rehearsal mechanism
–> refreshes info in the phonological store
the visuo-spatial sketchpad
- visual imagery and spatial information
- visual information = what
- spatial information = where
- highlighted through the mental rotation task
mental rotation task (Shepherd and Melzer, 1971)
- is the object the same object, different or are they mirrored?
- involves visual memory and spatial memory
–> visual = processing shape in current presentation
–> spatial = 3D modelling of where things are
findings of the mental rotation task
- findings suggest that the more an object has been rotated from the original, the longer it takes an individual to determine if the two images are of the same object or enantiomorphs (mirror images of each other)
visuospatial sketchpad and the blind
- blind participants generate Spatial representations of environment almost as accurately as sighted individuals
- maintains a sense or where you are in your environment without visual stimulus
- suggests the visuo and spatial elements are separate
separate visual and spatial parts? (Klauer and Zhao, 2004)
- explored if there are separate visual and spatial systems
- participants did one of two tasks:
1: Memory of dot locations (spatial)
2: Memory of Chinese characters (visual) - sometimes task performed with colour
discrimination task (visual interference) and sometimes with movement discrimination task (spatial interference)
predictions results of Klauer and Zhao (2004)
- predicted that if there are separate visual and spatial systems:
A: The spatial interference task should disrupt performance more on the spatial than visual main task
B: The visual interference task should disrupt performance more on the visual than spatial main task - both predictions were supported
boundary extension
- picture has to have a background for it to occur
- we fill in the blanks of what we can’t see and complete the background
- in tasks where pics are selected based on if they are new or old (been seen before), people make more errors when selecting images that extend the background of the previous image
–> when remembering and recalling the image, boundary extension has occurred - not an automatic process
processes that make working memory dynamic
- representational momentum
- representational gravity
- representational friction
representational momentum
a bias for people to misremember the location of orientation of an object further along its path of travel than it actually was the last time it was seen
representational gravity
memory for object positions tends to be distorted toward the earth (especially when objects aren’t supported)
representational friction
greater the implied contact with the object and the surface, the greater the IMPLIED FRICTION in our memory and recall (implied effects of friction impact our estimates)
summarise the multi-component working memory model
- highly influential theory of WM
- large body of evidence in support of individual components
- however, not without its issues
assumptions of the multicomponent model
- central executive
–> flexible allocation of attention - storage systems
–> domain-specific short-term storage - episodic buffer
–> binding of information from different sources
problem with central executive assumption
The central executive is a homunculus
–> a critical part of the model that is not explained any further
problem with the storage systems assumption
- do we really need two separate domain-specific storage systems?
how can we test domain-specificity?
- complex span task
- assess storage and processing of info
- can combine verbal and visuo-spatial materials to compare same-domain to different-domain performance
- doing two same domain tasks should reduce performance, doing two tasks from different domains shouldn’t interfere
rationale for Vergauwe et al.’s experiments (2022)
- previous studies used task combinations that varied in more aspects of the tasks than just the representational domain
–> e.g. response modality required
–> responding outload in visual spatial task (verbal) clicking with a mouse in a verbal task (visual spatial) - this confound might have affected the results
method of Vergauwe et al.’s experiments (2022)
- looked at domain specificity in complex span task
- verbal task = auditory representation of non-words
- then for second verbal processing they were given two letters and had to say if they rhyme
- then did two visuospatial tasks
- then mixed domains
- response was the same (had to click a mouse)
–> consistent across both experiments
results for Vergauwe et al.’s experiments (2022)
- no difference between same-domain and different-domain combinations
- speaks against need for two separate storage systems
- BUT only one study
buffer episodic buffer assumptions
- Do we really need two separate memory systems?
–> i.e. long-term and working memory? - Occam’s razor =
–> explanations with fewer assumptions are preferred
Cowan’s embedded processes model (1995)
working memory is a portion of long term memory in a currently activated state
summarise Cowan’s (1995) embedded-processes model
- we have a focus of attention
–> the current contents of working memory
–> the stimuli and very closely related concepts - we also activate a part of our long-term memory
–> broader
–> other related concepts
–> all activated
details on Cowan’s embedded processes model
- working memory holds “a limited amount of information temporarily in a heightened state of availability for use in ongoing information processing”
- working memory is a subset of representations in long-term memory, not a separate system
–> e.g. when being asked about our birthday, our birth year was in an activated state
problem with Cowan’s embedded processes model
- how do we select a single representation (e.g. “R”) for ongoing information processing (e.g. recall)?
- Oberauer’s (2009) three-embedded components model deals with this issue
what is Oberauer’s (2009) three-embedded components model?
- we have a narrow focus of attention
–> one currently selected representation - broad focus of attention
–> “region of direct access” to representations bound to the current context
–> this replaces Cowan’s previous narrow focus of attention - activated part of long-term memory
