Working Memory Model

Working Memory Model

What is a dual task paradigm?

two tasks preformed simultaneously → worse when same type of WM is used for both bcs interference occurs + WM = overloaded, better when diff types used

Working Memory Model

What is the WMM?

• Created by Baddeley and Hitch bcs of issues w/ MSM

• Describes internal structures/processes involved in STM, + info we can process/hold in our conscious attention to work on a task

Working Memory Model

Fill in the blanks:

1. STM

2. Episodic buffer

3. phonological loop

4. articulatory control system (ACS)

5. phonological store (PS)

6. Central executive

7. Visuospatial sketch pad

Working Memory Model

Describe the central executive: (6 to remember) + mnemonic

• Overall control, eg: problem solving, decision making, attention

• Controls flow of info b/w ‘slave systems’

• Can process any info from any sense

• Can re-direct attention from one slave system, to another

• Limited capacity

• Plays major role in planning + synthesizing info

Only Few People Really Love Pea Soup

Working Memory Model

Describe the phonological loop (4 to remember)

• Processing + temporary storage for auditory info, allows for maintenance rehearsal w/

  • ACS - (inner voice) for rehearsal

  • PS - (inner ear) for storage

• limited capacity

Working Memory Model

Describe the episodic buffer: (4 to remember)

• Added to WMM in 2000

• Integrates all types of data processed by other stores (eg: auditory, visual, spatial) SO described as storage component of CE

• Links info from the CE, the slave systems, and LTM

• Limited capacity

Working Memory Model

Describe the visuospatial sketch pad: (4)

• ‘inner eye’

• limited capacity (4-5 chunks (Baddeley))

• temporary storage + processing system for visual/spatial info

• Divided into ‘visual cache-storage’ + ‘inner scribe’

Working Memory Model

What are the ‘slave systems’?

Visuospatial sketch pad

Phonological loop

Working Memory Model

Evaluation: support for phonological loop + visuospatial sketchpad being separate

KF’s STM = damaged after motorcycle accident → could recall verbal but not visual info immediately after accident → supports WMM claim that verbal + verbal info is processed separately BUT not conclusive bcs case study

Working Memory Model

Evaluation: support for phonological loop

Baddeley et al (1975) → Ps remembered more short-words than long (the word length effect), when given interference task, preventing rehearsal (eg: counting backwards in 3s) → word-length effect disappeared → supports idea that phonological loop has limited duration

Working Memory Model

Evaluation: support using dual task paradigm

Baddeley + Hitch (1976) used dual task paradigm w/ Ps to demonstrate existence of different stores → found it hard to do dual tasks using same part of WMM but easy if used different aspects of the WMM → suggests STM = comprised multiple stores → supports WMM

Working Memory Model

Evaluation: idiographic/nomothetic

Uses both idiographic and nomothetic methods to provide support for the model → case studies (eg: KF) and experiments (eg: Baddeley et al (1975), Baddeley + Hitch) → strengthens model bcs there are in-depth case studies and general experiments which support the idea of the WMM

Working Memory Model

Evaluation: elaborates on STM from MSM

MSM views STM as singular, unitary store, so WMM elaborating on this increases insight/understanding of STM → can be used for further research/developing practical applications

Working Memory Model

Evaluation: practical application

Klingberg (2005): 42 children w/ ADHD, played a computer game designed to improve WM, two groups: 1) increasing task difficulty as WM improved, 2) constant task difficulty → increasing difficulty: sig. improvements to WM capacity, reasoning abilities, + decreased displays of behavioural symptoms → can be used to help reduce difficulties in WM associated w/ ADHD → improves quality of life

BUT

Children’s brains = more plastic → hard to generalise to gen pop

Working Memory Model

Evaluation: CE = too vague

doesn’t clearly define what it is → Eysenck (1986) claimed that a single CE might be as inaccurate as a single STM → almost impossible to study it: difficult to quantify/observe/measure → issue bcs not empirically tested, so can’t be falsified → unscientific