Topic 2 - Working memory model

the basic concept of the working memory model

• The Working Memory Model, proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974), is an explanation of short-term memory (STM) that sees it as an active, multi-component system used for temporary storage and manipulation of information during tasks like reasoning, learning, and comprehension - it is 1 store

  It replaces the idea of STM in the Multi-Store Model, which was too simplistic.

• When doing a novel task, your attentional resources are going to be stretched further as your central executive sends resources to the slave systems, which allows for concentration on what you see and hear

• If doing a practiced or automated task, you don’t need the attentional resources as you have done it before, so you don’t need concentration, allowing you to send attentional resources to other tasks at the same time (listening and singing to music)

central executive

• supervises and coordinates several subsidiary systems or ‘slave systems’

• directs attention to particular tasks - determining at any time how slave systems are allocated to tasks

• has no storage capacity

• The "boss" of the system

Research for the central executive - Baddeley:

• asked participants to generate random strings of digits on a keyboard ( you have to pay close attention to make sure you avoid some kind of pattern emerging)

• The task was carried out on its own or with one of the following tasks:

• reciting the alphabet - condition 1

• counting from 1 - condition 2

• alternating between letters and numbers ( A1 , B2 , C3) - condition 3

• Findings - the generated random digit of strings became increasingly less random in condition 3, where participants had to switch from alphabet to numbers at the same time

• Baddeley found that both the random number generation task and the alternation task were competing for the same central executive resources

evaluations of the central executive:

• Strength - backed up by research - Baddeley

• ✅ PEEL Paragraph – Central Executive and ADHD

  P (Point): The Working Memory Model has useful real-life application in understanding attention disorders such as ADHD.
  E (Evidence): Research suggests that individuals with ADHD often show impairments in the functioning of the Central Executive, the component responsible for controlling attention and coordinating tasks. For example, they may struggle to switch attention effectively or filter out distractions.
  E (Explain): This helps explain key symptoms of ADHD, such as distractibility, poor concentration, and impulsivity, as these difficulties may stem from an underactive or inefficient Central Executive. Supporting studies using brain scans have shown differences in the frontal lobe — the area associated with executive functioning — in people with ADHD.
  L (Link): Therefore, the WMM, particularly the Central Executive, provides a valuable cognitive explanation for ADHD and offers insight into how attention difficulties may be rooted in working memory processes.

• ❌ PEEL Weakness – Central Executive is vague and untestable

  P (Point): A major criticism of the Working Memory Model is that the Central Executive is too vague and difficult to test scientifically.
  E (Evidence): Although it's described as the system responsible for attention and coordination, Baddeley himself admitted that the Central Executive is the least understood component and lacks a clear explanation of how it actually works.
  E (Explain): Because it doesn’t have a detailed structure or clear mechanism, it becomes difficult to design experiments that directly test its role. This reduces the falsifiability of the model — a key feature of good scientific theories — and suggests the WMM may lack scientific rigour in this area.
  L (Link): Therefore, while the model is useful, the vague nature of the Central Executive limits its explanatory power and weakens the overall credibility of the WMM as a complete model of memory.

The phonological loop

• deals with auditory (sound) information and preserves the order of information

• consists of 2 parts:

The phonological store: holds the words you hear like an inner ear - has limited capacity - this store holds spoken words for 1.5-2 seconds - stores words you hear

• The articulatory process: used to rehearse verbal information from the phonological store - memory traces in the auditory store decay in 1-2 seconds, but can be maintained by the articulatory control process - ("inner voice") - allows rehearsal (e.g., repeating a word in your head)

• Research for the phonological loop - Baddeley

• Participants were given lists of short words and long words to recall - they recalled more short words than long words

• The researcher found that the phonological loop can hold the number of items that can be said in about 2 seconds

• since short words can be said in a shorter time than long words, more short words were recalled

🧠 Articulatory Suppression & Word Length Effect (Baddeley et al., 1975)

• Word Length Effect: Normally, short words are recalled better than long words because they take less time to rehearse in the phonological loop.

• Articulatory Suppression: Saying something repeatedly (e.g., "la-la-la") out loud to block verbal rehearsal.

• Findings: When articulatory suppression was used, the word length effect disappeared — short words were no longer recalled better than long ones.

• Conclusion: This shows the phonological loop is responsible for the word length effect, and that verbal rehearsal is essential for remembering words in working memory.

evaluations for the phonological loop:

• Strength - research support - Baddeley

• P (Point): A strength of the Working Memory Model is that it has valuable practical applications, particularly in education.
  E (Evidence): The model suggests that the phonological loop handles verbal information, and it has limited capacity. If a teacher speaks while students are trying to write, both tasks use the phonological loop, causing cognitive overload.
  E (Explain): This can reduce students’ ability to process or retain information, as their working memory becomes overloaded with both spoken and written input. Understanding this has led to advice in teacher training that teachers should avoid talking while students are writing to avoid disrupting the learning process.
  L (Link): Therefore, the Working Memory Model is not only supported by research but also has clear real-world benefits, helping improve teaching strategies and student learning outcomes.

• ❌ PEEL Paragraph – Phonological Loop is difficult to test

P (Point): A weakness of the Working Memory Model is that the phonological loop is difficult to test directly, making it less scientifically rigorous.
E (Evidence): The phonological loop includes internal, mental processes like the "inner voice" (articulatory rehearsal) and "inner ear" (phonological store), which cannot be directly observed or measured in lab settings.
E (Explain): Because researchers have to rely on indirect methods like dual-task experiments or articulatory suppression, it’s hard to be certain how the phonological loop actually works. This means the evidence is often inferred, reducing the testability and falsifiability of this part of the model.
L (Link): Therefore, the phonological loop, while useful in theory, may lack scientific precision, which limits the overall reliability and credibility of the Working Memory Model.

The visuospatial sketchpad

• deals with visual and spatial information - visual information refers to what things look like - spatial information refers to the layout of items relative to each other

• You use it when you are planning a spatial task

• allows you to visualise things

• The VSS is split into 2 parts:

• visual cache - stores information about visual items - has limited capacity

• inner scribe - stores arrangements of objects in the visual field - manipulates mental images in your head

• Evidence for the visuospatial sketchpad - Gathercole and Baddeley

• demonstrated the existence of the visuo-spatial

• Participants were given a visual tracing task ( they had to track a moving light with a pointer ) - At the same time, they were given one of two other tasks:

• Task 1 was to describe all the angles of the letter F

• Task 2 was to perform a verbal task

• Participants found task 1 very difficult, but not task 2, presumably because the second task involved 2 different components

evaluations for visuospatial sketchpad:

• Strength - research support - Gathercole and Baddeley

• ✅ PEEL Strength – Supported by dual-task studies

  P (Point): A strength of the visuo-spatial sketchpad is that it is supported by dual-task studies, which show it operates separately from the phonological loop.
  E (Evidence): Research has found that participants can perform a visual task (like tracking a moving light) and a verbal task (like repeating a word) at the same time without much difficulty. However, when asked to do two visual tasks at once, performance drops significantly.
  E (Explain): This supports the idea that visual and spatial information is processed in a separate system — the visuo-spatial sketchpad — and that working memory has multiple components rather than a single store.
  L (Link): Therefore, the VSSP has strong experimental support, increasing the validity of the Working Memory Model as a more accurate explanation of short-term memory.

• weakness - untestable, difficult to measure

• ❌ PEEL Weakness – Limited understanding of subcomponents

  P (Point): A weakness of the visuo-spatial sketchpad is that it is still not fully understood in terms of its structure and function.
  E (Evidence): While some researchers have suggested that the VSSP can be broken down into a visual cache (storing form and colour) and an inner scribe (storing spatial/movement info), evidence for this division is limited and not fully conclusive.
  E (Explain): This lack of clarity makes it difficult to study the VSSP in detail or to test it scientifically, which reduces the precision and falsifiability of this part of the model.
  L (Link): Therefore, the VSSP may lack explanatory depth, making the Working Memory Model less complete than it appears.

❌ PEEL Weakness – Artificial research tasks

P (Point): Another limitation of the research supporting the visuo-spatial sketchpad is that it often relies on artificial tasks.
E (Evidence): Experiments commonly involve participants doing tasks like remembering shapes or tracking dots on a screen, which don't reflect how we use visual memory in real life.
E (Explain): Because of this, the findings may lack ecological validity, meaning they might not apply to everyday tasks like navigating, reading maps, or drawing.
L (Link): This reduces the real-world relevance of the VSSP and weakens the practical application of the Working Memory Model as a whole.

episodic buffer

• This was added to the WMM by Baddeley (2000)

• So it shows how theories, etc are updated and amended over time - scientific adaptability

• Integrates information from different stores

• Links working memory to long-term memory

• Has limited capacity

• Acts as an intermediary between the sub-systems, combining them into a unitary multi-dimensional representation.

• Maintains a sense of time

evidence into the episodic buffer:

• Used MRI scans to see which areas of the brain were the most active during particular tasks.

  They found that:

  • For tasks that involved a combination of verbal & spatial information, there was greater activity in the right frontal area of the brain

  • For tasks that involved single sources of information,  there was greater activity in the posterior area of the brain

  These results provide neurological evidence that the episodic buffer provides temporary storage for combined/integrated information

• evaluations for the episodic buffer:

• ✅ PEEL Strength – Episodic Buffer shows the model is scientifically adaptable

  P (Point): A strength of the Episodic Buffer is that it demonstrates the scientific adaptability of the Working Memory Model.
  E (Evidence): The Episodic Buffer was added by Baddeley in 2000, after the original model (1974), to explain how information from different sources (e.g., visual and verbal) is combined and linked to long-term memory.
  E (Explain): This shows that the model is not fixed but can evolve in response to new research, such as findings that couldn’t be explained by just the phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad. The ability to revise the model makes it more scientifically valid, as it reflects the way cognitive processes actually work.
  L (Link): Therefore, the inclusion of the Episodic Buffer strengthens the Working Memory Model, showing that it remains a flexible and up-to-date explanation of short-term memory.

• ❌ PEEL Weakness – Episodic Buffer is difficult to test

  P (Point): A key weakness of the Episodic Buffer is that it is difficult to test or observe directly, which limits its scientific credibility.
  E (Evidence): The Episodic Buffer is believed to integrate information from different sources and link it to long-term memory, but it doesn’t have a clear physical location in the brain and can’t be directly measured in lab experiments.
  E (Explain): Because researchers rely on indirect behavioural evidence, it's hard to know exactly how it works, what information it holds, or how long it lasts. This makes it less falsifiable, which is a key feature of a strong scientific theory.
  L (Link): Therefore, although the Episodic Buffer helps fill a gap in the Working Memory Model, its lack of testability makes it a weaker and less well-understood component compared to the phonological loop or visuo-spatial sketchpad.

  
  

Further research evidence KF case study ( supports the existence of separate stores within the STM/WMM)

• KF was injured in a motorcycle accident

• But he was still able to recall things from his long-term memory, but had issues with short-term memory

• he could recall visual images, including faces, but was unable to remember sounds

• this meant that he could access one of the slave systems but not the other

• suggests that slave systems are separate

• also suggests that not all information has to pass through the same STM memory box to get into the LTM

Evaluations for the working memory model as a whole

• ✅ PEEL Strength – Practical application in diagnosing schizophrenia

  P (Point): A strength of the Working Memory Model is that it has real-world practical applications, particularly in understanding and identifying mental health conditions.
  E (Evidence): Research by Park et al. (1999) found that patients with schizophrenia show impairments in their visuo-spatial sketchpad (VSS) functions.
  E (Explain): This suggests that assessing working memory components like the VSS could be used as part of the diagnostic process for schizophrenia. It shows that the WMM is not only a theoretical model, but also has clinical relevance and can contribute to early detection and intervention in mental health.
  L (Link): Therefore, the WMM’s ability to inform clinical practice strengthens its usefulness and credibility as a psychological model.

• ✅ PEEL Strength – Explains memory as active, not passive

  P (Point): A major strength of the Working Memory Model is that it presents memory as an active process rather than a passive one.
  E (Evidence): Unlike the Multi-Store Model, which sees short-term memory as a single store where information is just held and rehearsed, the WMM proposes multiple components (e.g., phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad) that manipulate and process different types of information.
  E (Explain): This means that working memory is involved in complex cognitive tasks like problem-solving, decision-making, and comprehension, rather than just storing information temporarily. It reflects how we actually use memory in real life — for thinking, not just for holding facts.
  L (Link): Therefore, the WMM is a more accurate and dynamic explanation of short-term memory, increasing its validity as a cognitive model.

• ✅ PEEL Strength – Shows scientific adaptability through inclusion of the episodic buffer

  P (Point): A key strength of the Working Memory Model is its scientific adaptability, as shown by the later addition of the episodic buffer.
  E (Evidence): The episodic buffer was introduced by Baddeley in 2000, over two decades after the original model, to address limitations in explaining how information from different subsystems is integrated and linked to long-term memory.
  E (Explain): This shows that the WMM is a flexible and evolving theory, capable of being updated in light of new research evidence. Scientific models that adapt over time are generally considered more valid, as they reflect ongoing developments in our understanding of cognitive processes.
  L (Link): Therefore, the inclusion of the episodic buffer strengthens the WMM by showing it is a scientifically responsive and up-to-date model of memory.

❌ PEEL Weakness – Mechanically reductionist explanation of complex behaviour

P (Point): A key criticism of the Working Memory Model is that it can be seen as mechanically reductionist, meaning it oversimplifies complex mental processes.
E (Evidence): The model breaks down memory into separate components (e.g., phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad) and treats them like parts of a machine, each handling a specific type of information.
E (Explain): While this is useful for experimental research, it may ignore the influence of factors like emotion, motivation, and social context on memory. Real-life memory is more complex than just processing input through isolated systems — it involves holistic thinking, interaction between systems, and personal experience.
L (Link): Therefore, by reducing memory to mechanical subsystems, the WMM may lack depth and realism, limiting its ability to fully explain how memory operates in everyday life.

❌Point:
One limitation of the Working Memory Model is its heavy reliance on evidence from laboratory studies, which may reduce the validity of the model in real-world settings.

Evidence:
Many key studies supporting the WMM, such as dual-task experiments by Baddeley and Hitch (1974), were conducted in controlled lab environments.

Explanation:
While these studies offer strong internal validity and control over variables, they often lack ecological validity, as tasks like repeating digits or tracking visual patterns do not reflect the complexity of memory use in everyday life. This makes it difficult to generalise the findings to real-world situations, such as multitasking in school or at work.

Link:
Therefore, although the WMM is supported by experimental research, its over-reliance on artificial tasks limits its ability to fully explain how working memory operates outside the lab.