Cognitive Landry and Bartling (2011) [good for working memory model]

Aim:

Aim:

to see what happens when asked to carry out a dual-task technique that focuses on the phonological loop.

Procedure

• they used Articulatory suppression to test WMM. To see if articulatory suppression would influence the recall of a written list of phonolgically dissimilar letters in a serial recall

• 34, undergraduate psych students.

• Each participant tested individually

• They saw a list of ltters that they had to recall while saying the number ‘1’ and ‘2’ at a rate of 2 numbers per second ( an articualatory suppression task ).

• The control group saw the list of letters but didnt’t have to carry out the articulatory suppression task

• 10 lists, which consisted of a series of 7 letters randomly constructed from the letter F,K,L,M,R,X, and Q ( they don’t sound familiar ).

• Participants recieved an answer sheet with 7 blanks. They were allows to view on practice list to know how the procedure works The particiapnts were asked to say the numbers ‘1’ and ‘2’ at 2 letters per second starting from the time of presentation of the list until the itme they filled in the answer sheet. Was repeated 10 times.

• Contrl group: was showed a printed list for 5 seconds, then waited 5 secs and wrote down correct order of letters on the answer sheet as accurately as possible. This was repeated 10 times.

• Each trial was scored for accuracy of recall. Only scored correct if letter in the correct position.

• Then they calculated the average percent correct recall for both groups

Results

• results from experimental group were much lower ( 45 % )

• Results from control group were higher ( 76 % )

• Results supported experimental hypothesis

• Articulatory suppression is preventing rehearsal in the phonological loop because of overload.

evaluation:

• The study is a well-controlled study with a high level of internal validity. A cause-and-effect relationship can be determined.

• However, the nature of the study is rather artificial and thus lacks ecological validity.

• The study supports the Working Memory Model and is easily replicable.  The findings are, therefore, reliable.