Working Model of Memory

Question 1

Proposed by:

Answer 1

Baddaley and Hitch (1974)

Question 2

3 Parts:

Answer 2

1) Central Executive
2) Phonological Loop
3) Visuospatial Sketchpad

Question 3

Central Executive

Answer 3

• Supervises and focuses on what needs to be done (prioritization)
• Monitors + coordinates function of visuospatial sketchpad and phological loop

Question 4

Phonological Loop

Answer 4

1) Phological store - inner ear
2) Articulatory rehearsal component - inner voice
- Operation of comprehension of verbal and written material
- Numbers or words can be rehearsed for retention in STM (rehearsed in a loop)

Question 5

Visuospatial sketchpad

Answer 5

• Inner eye
• Visual information and spatial awareness

Question 6

Episodic Buffer (in updated model 2000)

Answer 6

• Acts as a bridge between LTM and brings it to STM so that the information can be organized better
• ‘Backup store’ which communicates with LTM and the various components of working memory

Question 7

Long-term Memory

Answer 7

1) Language - verbal information that interacts with the pohonological loop
2) Episodic LTM - memory for events which interacts with episodic buffer
3) Visual semantics - meaningful visual knowledge which interacts with the visuospatial sketchpad

Question 8

Disadvantages

Answer 8

• Not a complete theory of a model because it focuses on STM
• Doesn’t account for how distortions of memory happen
• Debate over dividing visuospatial sketchpad
• Little evidence for how the central executive works and what it does
• Doesn’t explain how processing abilities can change with practice and time

Question 9

vs Multi-store

Answer 9

• More sophisticated and explains wide range of phenomena
• Physiological basis
• Doesn’t overemphasize on the role of rehearsal (episodic buffer)
• Difficult to falsify as testing methods are extensive

Question 10

Conrad and Hull (1964)

Answer 10

Aim - naturing of encoding information in STM using phonological loop
They showed that lists of phonologically similar letters (such as B, D, P) are more difficult to remember than lists of letters that do not sound similar (such as P, R, X). Presumably, this is because acoustically encoded traces of rhyming letters are easier to confuse with each other. We convert visual material acoustically in the STM so we find it difficult to distinguish things that sound the same. Supports idea that memory for speech material uses a sound based storage system (phonological store).

Question 11

Baddaley, Lewis, and Vallar (1984)

Answer 11

Aim - to determine the effects of articulatory suppression on the phonological similarity effect

Procedure -
4 conditions: Spoken mode of presentation or written mode of presentation and rhyming words or non-rhyming words
- participants asked to repeat a sequence of sounds while performing an experimental task so inner voice capacity fills up.
- participants required to recall lists of letters.

Results - phonological similarity effect between conditions 1 and 2 (rhyming words harder than non-rhyming words)
no phonological similarity effect between conditions 3 and 4 (written material rate of recall for non-rhyming and rhyming the same)

Conclusion - articulatory rehearsal inhibited, spken information can enter the phonological store, rhyming words can be confused because they create similar traces
written information enters visuospatial sketchpad and traces are not easy to confuse

Question 12

Lieberman (1980)

Answer 12

Aim:
To challenge the Working Memory Model (WMM), specifically the visuospatial sketchpad, by investigating how spatial information is processed.

Methodology:
Lieberman analyzed how blind individuals navigate and develop spatial awareness without visual input, using observational and experimental approaches.

Results:
Blind participants could form accurate spatial representations through non-visual senses (e.g., touch, sound), contradicting the WMM’s emphasis on visual information for spatial processing.

Conclusion:
The visuospatial sketchpad is oversimplified, as it fails to account for non-visual spatial processing.

Strengths:

Highlighted an important gap in the WMM, promoting model refinement.
Increased understanding of how different sensory modalities contribute to spatial awareness.
Limitations:

Lacked controlled experimental rigor compared to laboratory studies.
Focused mainly on blind individuals, which may limit broader generalizability.
Did not propose a clear alternative model for spatial processing.