the working memory model describe the main components in the working memory model

Download The Working Memory Model Describe the main components in the working memory model

Post on 21-Jan-2016

213 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

The Working Memory Model

The Working Memory ModelDescribe the main components in the working memory model.

Work this out in your heads in silence...17 + 29 + 30 =

43 + 12 + 23 =

What process do you use to work these out?7678Baddeley & Hitch (1974)Believed memory is not just one store but a number of different stores:2 visual tasks = poorer performance but 1 visual and 1 verbal means no interruption

Focused on STM ONLY and believed it was not a unitary store LTM as a more passive store that holds previously learned material for use by the STM when needed.

ModelWe will now look at the working memory modelwhilst exercising your memories!In groups of 4A3 paper eachEach take turn at looking at the model for 30 seconds then report back to group. Group must try and draw model from reports reporter CANNOT draw!4The Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)

Print this off to A3 paper and sick outside classroom for memory game5Central executiveKey component in modelFunctions: Direct attention to tasks Determine how resources (slave systems) are allocated.

Limited Capacity6Phonological LoopLimited Capacity

Deals with auditory information and preserves word order

Baddeley (1986) further subdivided it intoPhonological store ( holds words heard)Articulatory process ( holds words heard/seen and silently repeated ( looped) like an inner voice.7Visuo-spatial sketch padVisual and/or spatial information stored hereVisual = what things look likeSpatial = relationships between thingsLimited capacity

Logie (1995) suggested subdivision: Visuo-cache (store) Inner scribe for spatial relations.

8Episodic BufferBaddeley ( 2000) added episodic buffer as he realised model needed a more general store. Slave systems deal with specific types of information.Central executive has no storage capacityBuffer extra storage system but with limited capacity.Integrates information from all other areas.9Sum it up...Weve seen the model now lets talk about the model.....

Write ONE question about the working memory model (that you know the answer to).You will go and test the class and see how well they have understood/remembered the model.Evidence for the Working Memory Model.

To test the idea of more than one component, Baddeley and Hitch devised the dual task technique.

Lets see what happened..

13Your turn!You will now complete a dual task technique ( one that was used by Baddeley and Hitch).

Repeat the numbers below aloud whilst ticking the true/false answers

482917141: B is followed by A BATrue/False2: A is preceded by BABTrue/False3: A is not followed by BBATrue/False4: B follows AABTrue/False5: B does not follow ABATrue/False6: B is not followed by AABTrue/False7: A follows BABTrue/False8: B is not preceded by AABTrue/False9: A is not followed by BBATrue/False10: B does not precede AABTrue/False

Their research (Baddeley & Hitch)..Asked participants to perform a reasoning task whilst simultaneously reciting aloud a list of 6 digits.

If digit span is really a measure of STM capacity, participants would be expected to show impaired performance on the reasoning task because their STM would be fully occupied.

However, found Participants made few errors on either, though the speed was slightly slower.16Summarise1) What did they do in the experiment (HINT: its what you did!!)

2) How does this support evidence for the working memory model?Evidence for the central executiveBaddeley (1996) investigated selective attention and switching retrieval plans. Asked participants to generate random strings of digits on a keyboard (this is quite hard as you have to pay close attention in order to avoid some kind of pattern emerging). This was carried out alone or alongside another task such as reciting the alphabet, counting from one or alternating between letters and numbers (A1, B2, C3). The generated digit string became increasingly less random in Condition 3 where participants had to switch from alphabet to numbers at the same time.Baddeley concluded that both the random number generation task and the alternation task were competing for the same central executive resources.More evidence for CEIndividuals had to perform two tasks simultaneously (dual task) rather than one after the other (single task).

Bunge et al (2000) used fMRI to see which parts of the brain were most active when participants were doing two tasks (reading a sentence and recalling the final word in each sentence).

The same brain areas (pre-frontal cortex) were active in either dual or single task conditions but there was significantly more activation in dual task conditionEvidence for the phonological loop and articulatory process

Remember the following:

Harm

Twice

Calm

ShareTree

BookSunFourKeyShortRecall them!How many did you get right?HarmTwiceCalmShareTreeBookSunFourKeyShort

And again..recall these:Association

Representative

Discouragement

Meaningfulness

Suppression

Enhancing

Component

Performances

Forgetting

Damaging

Recall them!How many did you get right?AssociationRepresentativeDiscouragementMeaningfulnessSuppressionEnhancingComponentPerformancesForgettingDamaging

The phonological loop explains why the word- length effect occurs the fact that people cope better with short words than long words in working memory (STM). Word- length effectIt seems that the phonological loop holds the amount of information that you can say in 1.5 - 2 seconds (Baddeley et al, 1975).

This makes it hard to remember a list of long words such as association and representative compared to shorter words like harm and twice and therefore inhibits rehearsal of longer words! BUTarticulatory processWord length effect disappears if a person is given an articulatory suppression task (the, the, the while reading the words).

The repetitive task ties up the articulatory process and means you cant rehearse the shorter words more quickly than the longer ones, so the word length effect disappears.

This provided evidence for Evidence for the visuo-spatial sketchpadBaddeley et al (1975) demonstrated the existence of the visuo-spatial sketchpad. 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 on the letter F, task 2 was to perform a verbal task. Task 1 was very difficult, but not task 2, presumably because the second task involved two different components (or slave systems). This is also evidence related to the effects of doing two tasks using the same or different components. This was a highly controlled laboratory experiment using a repeated measures design to eliminate individual differences. However, the task was rather artificial.

Also.Logie (1995) Visual cache stores information about visual form and colour and the inner scribe processes spatial and movement information.

Klauer and Zhao (2004) supported this idea by asking participants to carry out one of two primary tasks, either a visual task or a spatial task. At the same time as doing this task they were asked to do either a spatial interference task, a visual interference task or no secondary task (control condition). They found that performance of the spatial task was much poorer for people who were simultaneously carrying out the spatial distracter task than for people who were doing the visual distracter task and vice versa.

Studies using positron emission tomography (PET) scans have also provided evidence for separate spatial and visual systems. There appears to be more activity in the left half of the brain of people carrying out visual working memory tasks but more in the right half of the brain during spatial task.

Evidence for the episodic bufferBaddeley et al (1987)PPTs were shown words and then immediate recallRecall was much better for sentences (related words) than unrelated

Supports idea of general memory store that draws on LTM (semantics)Evidence from brain damaged patientsCase of KF (Shallice and Warrington, 1970) showed that STM works independently of LTM

STM forgetting of auditory information was much greater than that of visual stimuli. Thus his brain damage seemed to be restricted to the phonological loop.LettersMeaningful soundsring ring

Also.SC - generally good learning abilities with the exception of being unable to learn word pairs that were presented out loud. This suggests damage to the phonological loop (Trojano and Grossi, 1995)

LH - had been involved in a road accident. Performed better on spatial tasks than those involving visual imagery (Farah et al, 1988). This suggests separate visual and spatial systems.

Homework..Fill in the necessary words of your glossary lists with the information you have learned on the working memory model!Sum it up...Weve seen the model now lets talk about the model.....

Write ONE question about the working memory model (that you know the answer too).You will go and test the class and see how well they have understood/remembered the model.

Recommended

View more >