working memory model Flashcards
who proposed the working memory model?
Baddeley and Hitch (1974).
outline the WMM.
a representation of how the STM is organised and how it functions.
it is concerned with the part of memory that is active when we are temporarily storing and manipulating information - e.g. when working on a complex task, like a maths problem.
the model consists of four main components, all of which are qualitatively different particularly in terms of coding and capacity.
- central executive
- phonological loop
- visuospatial sketchpad
- episodic buffer
describe the central executive.
has overall control.
monitors incoming data, focuses and divides our limited attention and allocates subsystems to tasks.
these systems have separate responsibilities and work independently of one another.
the CE has a very limited processing capacity and does not store information.
describe the phonological loop.
one of the subsystems.
deals with auditory information (coding is acoustic) and preserves the order in which information arrives.
the PL is subdivided into:
phonological store - stores the words you hear.
articulatory process - allows maintenance rehearsal (repeats words in a loop to keep them in the working memory whilst needed).
describe the visuo-spatial sketchpad.
one of the subsystems.
stores visual and/or spatial information when required.
used when planning a spatial task, e.g. when you are asked to work our how many windows are in your house and you visualise it.
limited capacity.
further subdivided into:
visual cache - stores visual data.
inner scribe - records the rearrangement of objects in the visual field.
describe the episodic buffer.
added to the model by Baddeley (2000) as he realised the model needed a more general store.
seen as the temporary storage component of the central executive and has a limited capacity.
integrates the visual, spatial and verbal information processed by other stores - single memory rather than just separate strands.
links working memory to LTM and wider cognitive processes.
discuss research support as a strength of the WMM.
one strength of the WMM is that studies of dual task performance support the existence of different components in the STM store.
when Baddeley’s ptps carried out a visual and verbal task at the same time, their performance in each was similar to when they carried out the tasks separately. but when both tasks were visual (or verbal), performance on both declined substantially.
this is because both visual tasks compete for the same subsystem (VSS), whereas there is no competition when performing a verbal and visual together.
this shows that there must be a separate subsystem that processes visual input and one that processes verbal, thus providing evidence for the separate subsystems of the VSS and PL - supporting the WMM.
however, these studies use tasks that are very unlike the tasks performed in everyday life, e.g. recalling random sequences of letters. they are also carried our in highly controlled lab conditions. this lack of ecological validity means the WMM may not be a valid model of how working memory works in our everyday lives where we have to remember meaningful info.
discuss clinical evidence as a strength of WMM.
one strength is support from clinical case studies.
After his brain injury, KF had poor STM ability for auditory information but could process visual information normally. e.g. his immediate recall of digits was better when he read them (visual) than when they were read out loud to him (acoustic).
KF’s phonological loop was damaged but his visuo-spatial sketchpad was intact.
this finding strongly supports the existence of separate visual and acoustic memory stores, thus supporting the WMM.
however, it is unclear whether KF had other cognitive impairments other than the damage to his PL which might have affected his performance on memory tasks. for example, the trauma involved from his motorcycle accident may have affected his cognitive performance quite apart from any brain injury.
this challenges the evidence that comes from clinical studies of people with brain injuries that may have affected many different studies, thus limiting the support that the evidence can give the WMM.
