Working Memory Model

Who were the people who researched WMM & what did they say about STM?

• Baddeley & Hitch (2004)

• “ STM is not a single unitary system; rather it is an amalgam (or alliance) of several temporary memory systems working together.”

Central Executive

• Has a supervisory role

• Monitors incoming data from senses or LTM, focuses & divided our limited attention & allocated subsystems to tasks

• Has a v. limited capacity

  • Cannot attend to many things at once

Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad

• Used when you have to plan a spatial task

• Codes visual info in terms of separate objects as well as the arrangement of these objects in one’s visual field

• Limited capacity (3-4 objects)

Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad (Visual)

• What things look like

• Stores info about visual items

  • e.g. form & colour

Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad (Spatial)

• The physical relationship between things

• An inner scribe which stores the arrangement of objects in the visual field

Episodic Buffer

• Receives input from many stores, temporarily stores this info, & then integrates it in order to construct a mental episode of what is being experienced

• Maintains a sense of time sequencing

• Sends info to LTM

• Extra storage system

• Limited capacity

• Links working memory to LTM

Phonological Loop

• Deals w. auditory info & preserves order of info

• Limited capacity

Phonological Loop (Phonological Store)

• Holds words you hear, like the inner ear

• Limited capacity

• Duration of 2 seconds (unless repeated)

Phonological Loop (Articulatory Control Process)

• Used for words that are heard or seen

• These words are silently repeated like an inner voice

  • Is a form of maintenance rehearsal

Strength 1 of WMM - Supporting research

Point: One strength of the working memory model comes from dual task studies

Evidence: Baddeley & Hitch (1976) found that when 2 tasks require the participants to use their phonological loop, their ability to perform the task is impaired.

Explain: However, when 1 task requires the participant to simultaneously use their phonological loop (remembering a series of numbers) & the other requires their visuo-spatial sketchpad (copying a drawing) then their performance isn’t impaired.

Link: This provides support to the model & to the existence of multiple components within our STM system

Limitation 1 of WMM - Issues & Debates

Point: The WMM can be seen as reductionist because it breaks down memory into smaller, distinct components

Evidence: The existence of the central executive, phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad & episodic buffer

Explain: While this approach provides a clear structure for understanding cognitive processes involved in working memory, it may over simplify the complexity of how memory functions. Memory is a process that interacts w. other cognitive functions e.g. attention, emotion & LTM

Link: By focusing solely on working memory, the model could neglect the broader context of cognitive processing.

Strength 2 of WMM - Supporting Case Studies

Point: Further support for the WMM comes from case studies.

Evidence: For example, the case of patient KF, who suffered a motorcycle accident. His short term forgetting of auditory info was greater than for visual info, suggesting that his phonological loop was damaged but his VSS was intact.

Explain/Link: This suggests that it is possible just 1 part of STM. If all STM were stored in the same place, KF’s entire STM would be damaged

However: One limitation is brain damaged patients may not be reliable as it concerns unique cases w. patients who have had traumatic experiences so unable to generalize to everyone (use idiographic approach)

Limitation 2 of WMM - The central executive

Point: Some psychologists feel the concept of the central executive is too vague & doesn’t really explain anything

Evidence: All it appears to do is allocate resources & essentially be the same as ‘attention’. Critics feel the notion of a single central executive is wrong & that there are probably several components.

Explain: Eslinger & Damasio (1995) studied EVR, who had a cerebral tumor removed. He performed well on tests requiring reasoning, which suggested that his central executive was intact. However, he had poor decision-making skills, which suggests that in fact his central executive was not wholly intact.

Link: In summary, the account offered of the central executive is unsatisfactory because it is probably more complex then Baddeley & Hitch originally suggested.