Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

2.2 cognitive 2 > working memory 1 > Flashcards

working memory 1 Flashcards

1
Q

working memory definition

A

storage and processing of information in the present moment

The ability to hold goal-relevant information in mind (active state) for ongoing task in the physical absence of this information

flexible workspace - used to guide behaviour

WM = an ability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

WM - flexibility

A

can hold any info - make arbitrary relationships between items

e.g. an authentication code is arbitrary but we use it in relation to getting access to what we want

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

stages of working memory experiments

A

encoding
retention interval
retrieval

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

WM vs LTM (4)

A

WM:
active (easy access)
relevant to goal/task
immediate use
limited capacity

LTM:
remote (needs to be cued)
everything learned/remembered
permanent (ish)
unlimited capacity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

multicomponent model of WM - components

A

Baddeley and Hitch (1974)

central executive
visuospatial sketchpad
episodic buffer
phonological loop
LTM

VSSP, EB, and PL all transfer info between LTM and WM

  • both directions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

multicomponent model of memory - features (3)

A

hierarchical organisation

multiple components with functional responsibilities

interaction of attention, LTM with present stimulus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

central executive function

A

coordination of storage systems and control of attention to stimuli

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

storage systems: visuospatial sketchpad and phonological loop function

processing of senses

A

senses:
visuospatial and auditory information

taste (olfaction) and touch (haptics) are not formal components –> go from CE to sense to episodic buffer (not in VSSP or PL)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

episodic buffer function

A

binding of multimodal information to form episodic memories

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

assumptions of components of multicomponent model (3)

A

central executive = flexible allocation of attention

storage systems (VSSP and PL) = domain-specific short-term storage, only deal with info specific to their domain

episodic buffer = binding of information from different sources

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

phonological loop - more detailed

A

auditory/linguistic input –>
phonological short-term store <–> subvocal rehearsal (between these 2 is the articulatory loop, goes round between them)

rehearsal is needed to remember information in WM through this articulatory loop

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

subvocal rehearsal

A

saying things in your head

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

word length effect

A

recall in WM is a function of time

2 seconds => we can remember the number of words we can articulate in 2 secs, if we cannot rehearse them in this time they decay

can recall more short words than long words - as long words take longer to articulate (say or sub-vocalise)

[think of experiment in lecture with memorising country names]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

word length effect - Welsh

A

Ellis and Hennelley (1980)

  • bilingual english and welsh speakers
  • can recall more english than welsh digits
  • as welsh digits have longer spoken duration
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

word length effect - chinese

A

stigler et al (1986)

  • better chinese digit span
  • chinese digits have short spoken duration
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

conclusions from word length effect studies - welsh and chinese

A

language can have profound impact on memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

phonological similarity effect

A

tendency for recall to be depressed where the items “sound” similar in WM - semantic similarity

similar meaning does not effect working memory

suggests that coding is phonological

18
Q

semantic similarity study

A

assessed recall for semantically related vs unrelated words
with interference - backwards counting task between encoding and recall - or without

results:
relatedness protects against interference
sematic links strengthen ability to recall information

these are inconsistent with previous findings for multi-component model

19
Q

articulatory suppression

A

the uttering of an irrelevant word (“the, the, the..”) whilst being presented with words to remember

20
Q

word length effect and articulatory suppression

A

articulatory suppression abolishes the word length effect with visual presentation – participants can’t transform words into phonological codes – because phonological loop is used up by saying other words so cannot be used to memorise words

word length effect is NOT abolished with auditory presentation - presumably as words enter straight into phonological store so speech doesn’t interfere

suggests suppression occupies the articulatory control processes (for visual presentation) but does not prevent direct access to phonological store (for auditory presentation)

21
Q

is there a phonological loop in deaf signers

A

(in core reading too)

evidence shows PL exists in deaf signers

4 signature effects on deaf signers immediate recall of signs:

  • phonological similarity effect - similar motions of signs
  • word length effect - how long a word takes to sign
  • articulatory suppression effect
  • irrelevant speech effect

proposed a sign based phonological loop - the sign loop

22
Q

2 elements of the sign loop (deaf)

A

PL in deaf signers

sign-based phonological store - codes e.g. hand shape, orientation, location, movement

manual articulatory rehearsal mechanism - refreshes info in the phonological store

23
Q

visuo-spatial sketchpad - two types of info

what type of study used to show this

A

visual imagery = what
spatial information = where

can study with mental rotation task

24
Q

mental rotation task

A

Shepherd and Melzer (1971)
for VSSP

  • shown two images of 3d objects
  • asked is the object the same object, different, or are they mirrored (mirrored = enantiomorphs)
  • involves visual and spatial memory

results:
3 types of trial:

  • picture-plane rotations = image rotates = visual - viewing images as they are now
  • depth rotations = 3D rotation of shape - new perspective = spatial - more related to 3D modelling
  • control
  • the more an object has been rotated from the original or more spatially changed, the longer it takes them to determine if the two images are of the same object or mirrored
  • linear correlation between reaction time for same pairs and angle of rotation
25
Q

blind and sighted peoples VSSP as evidence for functional distinction of visual and spatial

A

blind people generate spatial representations of environment almost as accurately as sighted (Schmidt et al., 2013)

this uses same mechanisms as sighted people but without visual input - shows distinct systems

maintain sense of where you are in environment without visual stimulus - spatial ability without visual imagery

26
Q

separate visual and spatial systems study

A

Klauer and Zhao (2004)

participants did one of two tasks:

  1. memory of dot location on a grid (spatial)
  2. memory of Chinese characters - which was presented (visual)

sometimes complete task with colour discrimination task (visual interference)

sometimes complete task with with movement discrimination (spatial interference)

predictions
if there are separate visual and spatial systems:

  • spatial interference task should disrupt performance more on spatial than visual task
  • visual interference task should disrupt performance more on visual than spatial

results

  • supported predictions
  • movement interfered with both task - more with dots than characters
  • colour interfered with characters but not dots location

idea that domain specificity causes conflict –> visual-visual task doesn’t work well due to being overworked

27
Q

issue with CE assumption of flexible allocation of attention

A

CE is a homunculus - a critical part of the model that is not explained further

homunculus = “small human like thing” - like a small person in your head making decisions and controlling things

doesn’t say how it does that despite WM relying on that

28
Q

issue with the assumption of storage systems as domain-specific short-term storage

A

are two separate domain-specific storage systems needed e.g. VSSP and PL

the fact that both are split down further too

also other senses are needed - haptics, taste, smell

idea of less is more - why split it up so much

29
Q

WM study with storage and processing

A

complex span task to assess storage and processing of information

  1. present a letter to remember (storage)
  2. present a maths equation to say if it makes sense (processing)
  3. another letter to remember
  4. maths equation again and say if it makes sense
  5. letter to remember
  6. maths equation
    etc

at the end, recall all stored letters
accuracy of recall = DV

this requires switching between using working memory to store and manipulate information

30
Q

testing domain-specificity of storage systems - method of testing

A

use complex span task to see if tasks conflict with each other

use verbal and/or visuospatial info for storage and/or processing to see if performance varies - due to conflict

e.g. verbal - verbal = same domain
e.g. verbal - visuospatial = different domain

storage
verbal = letters, numbers, words
visuospatial = location on a grid, shapes, patterns

processing
verbal = decision about equations, lexicality, rhyme
visuospatial = decisions about symmetry, orientation, identity

31
Q

domain-specificity testing - predictions

A

domain-specificity predicts lower recall performance for same domain than different domain

due to overloading of component of WM - resource is already used up

32
Q

Vergauwe et al (2022) - domain-specificity improved study - rationale

A

rationale = previous studies used task combinations that vary on more aspects than just the representational domain - response modality required –> this confound might have affected the results

previous experimental design issues

33
Q

Vergauwe et al (2022) - domain-specificity improved study - method

A

complex span task

verbal storage = auditory nonwords (e.g. lorro) - remember these - at the end click and select which words were presented to them

verbal processing = make judgement of if two letters are rhymes e.g. B+D are, A+J are not

visuospatial storage = remember locations in a grid - click where this was at the end

visuospatial processing = asked whether two letters share axis of symmetry e.g. CD do (horizontal) but AC do not (vertical and horizontal)

34
Q

Vergauwe et al (2022) - domain-specificity improved study - results

A

no difference between same-domain and different-domain combinations

therefore there may be no need for two separate storage systems

however, lacks validity as it is the only study on this - needs more support

this is just the start of challenging the assumptions of the model

35
Q

issue with the assumption that the EB is the binding of info from different sources

A

are two separate memory systems needed (WM and LTM)

e.g. no effort needed to remember some LTM things so is this actually being drawn out of LTM into WM or is there more overlap

Occam’s razor = explanations with fewer assumptions are preferred

36
Q

LTM as a spread of activation

A

representations in LTM are activated by similar words which are linked in a network

e.g. “red” activates concepts such as: colour, roses, apples, fire etc.

these other activations then spread further across linked network

37
Q

Cowan’s embedded-process model (1995)

A

2 embedded components

  • focus of attention = current contents of working memory
  • activated part of long term memory = nearest terms in network to it

WM holds a limited amount of info temporarily in a heightened state of availability for use in ongoing info processing

idea of WM as a subset of representations in LTM, not a separate system

activate specific parts of LTM when we need it - more focussed - becomes more easily accessible when activated

38
Q

Cowan’s embedded-process model (1995) - with a complex span task

A

idea that letters to remember (storage) are not new concepts - often used symbols and so will be in the “focus of attention” and easily accessible - already have these concepts that just needed activating

but this would then spread and activate related things - how would a single representation be selected for processing and recall? - flaw of this model

39
Q

Oberauers (2009) - three-embedded components model

A

picture as a bullseye over a network of spreading activation

added layer to cowan’s model which allows for activation of a single representation

narrow focus of attention = one currently selected representation - can be recalled and processed

broad focus of attention = region of direct access to representations bound to current context - readily activated for when it is needed

activated part of long-term memory = wider spreading activations

40
Q

Oberauers three-embedded components model - with a complex span task

+ unanswered questions (3)

A

the specific letters needed for storage and recall are in the narrow focus of attention

  • unclear how many representations are in broad focus of attention
  • capacity of processing
  • variation across individuals

2.2 cognitive 2 (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions