Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Working memory reading, Working mem = temporary mental workspace- hold and…
Working memory reading
When picking up/ processing new info/ retrieving long term info- WM - lets us keep track of what’s happening/ what we’re thinking- lets us link new/ old info, manipulate (use) info and plan- only able to hold few times at a time for a few secs- need to function flexibly/ it underlies consciousness in moment to moment
Connects external world, internal thoughts and stored knowledge and experience- connected but separable for short lived sensory info- lasts a few hundred milliseconds- short term memory linked to WM both store info for a few sec- but with WM there’s processing/ manipulation as well as storage
Measuring WM- usually to measure STM/WM present ppts with words, numbers, visuospatial patterns, objects- soon after either recall or recognise some or all info they encountered = simple storage span tasks - complex WM spam tasks adds processing element eg recalling backward, solving problems while remembering sequence (operation span) - not clear cut often simple tasks ppts still process/ manipulate info- so tasks without explicit processing can still measure WM
Performance WM tasks often increases to young adulthood- declines with middle/ older age- likely reflect age changes in brain areas related to WM and cog control- also related to cog/ meta cog factors eg attentional control, process speed, cog flexibility, meta cog awareness- all change with age- influence WM performance and strats used to support it
WM= central hub in complex cognition- key factor in broader theories of the mind- suggested WM capacity increase- underlies advanced human creativity- allow us to plan, solve problems and interact w/ dynamic social groups- WM also been linked to higher fluid intelligence (reason, problem solving, abstract thinking without relying on prior knowledge)
Relationship w/ fluid intelligence strengthens for complex instead of simple span tasks- WM performance predicts other abilities/ life outcomes- eg job performance, mind wandering, moral judgement, smoking abstinence
Hinson et al (2003)- WM related to decision making/ impulsivity- when WM spent on other tasks usually went for more small immediate reward
In education- experiments suggest WM predicts literacy and numeracy (Peng et al 2016/2018)- needed for learning- need to hold/ manipulate info while doing learning/ instruction tasks/ comprehending concepts via storing/ processing info
Susan Gathercole WM in class- highlighted Ed challenges for children with WM difficulties/ deficits and identified WM demands in class- keeping track learning activities/ progress, do prob solving, planning, flex thinking, integrate new and old info- all in noisy environment where kids don’t have full WM capacity or metacog ability-
Gathercole (2006) identified issues oft arise for kids with WM difficulties as can’t hold info for long- hinders ability to participate in class- struggle to finish tasks, generate solutions to problems and follow instructions- miss learning opportunities and fall behind in core skills dev- Gathercole and Alloway (2008) intervention to help this- surrounded bringing WM principles into class, raising teacher awareness of low WM indicators and how to structure activities to reduce WM overload- using memory aids/ repetition
-
Temporary storage WM links to early language processing- when learning to read need to hold recently decoded letters already translated to speech sounds in mind- when encountering unknown phonological forms- need to temp hold till more long lasting representation is acquired (Baddeley 1998) - evidenced by Baddeley PV- limited phonological STM could hold some words presented in native language but not in unfamiliar one/ children’s ability to hold and recall non words impaired in children w/ language difficulties/ dyslexia
Limits WM- performance nearly always declines when memory load= higher (Oberaurer eg al 2018)- tested with memory span- memory load begins low level- increased till certain no. errors made- upper limit identified as memory span score-
Other limits= time= no clear time boundary between WM and long term mem but WM generally over seconds- - Phillips and Baddeley- (1971) drop in pots to retrieve patterns when increased retention period between encoding and test- verbal info also lost this way (1975)- time decay unless rehearsal or refreshing
Limit to WM Amount of info that can be held or processed at 1 time- Miller (1956)- identified chunking concept- basic level info can be divided into chunks that can vary in amount of info contained- Miller said 7 chunks plus or minus 2 max- Cowan (2001) said more likely 3-4 depending on individual and task
Possibility we have fixed number of all or none memory slots- remembered if stored in slot forgotten if not (Luck and Vogel 2013)- or argued it’s a continuous resource- that can have detail store of few chunks of info or thin understanding of more chunks (Ma et al 2014) either way can only hold few pieces of info in WM for few secs
Interference- info in WM vulnerable to interference from various sources eg if shown several representations these are likely to interfere with each other- contribute to forgetting- more likely when items= similar (Nairne 1990) - phonological example map, man, cap, mad ((Baddeley 1966) - indicates phonological store where similar sounding words more likely to be confused- smaller effect but still there for semantic similarity (great, big, large) - worse when also asked word order
Interference from environment- eg music when trying to study- Salamé and Baddeley (1982)-spoken words/ syllables disrupted memory for visual sequences- assumed ppts convert visual numbers into phonological form and held in phonological store- irrelevant sounds have immediate access and interfere with storage vocal music causes more interference than instrumental but still disruption (1989)- sounds fluctuating more causes more disruption for recalling order of diff stimuli than sound that stays the same (Jones and Macken 1995)
Concurrent activity- limits to WM when we try to multitask- use dual task logic to see components of WM- what people do as concurrent activity is also important eg saying irrelevant words/ numbers disrupts conversion (recoding) visual stimuli into verbal representations and rehearsal of these representations in WM (Baddeley et al 1984)
increased difficulty of concurrent task can also affect WM more
Concurrent activities can also alter visuospatial processing eg tapping patterns (Logic et al 1990) visual pattern tasks alongside other tasks requiring visuospatial imagery/ letter memory with concurrent arithmetic tasks supports distinct verbal and visuospatial parts of WM - Klauer/ Zhao (2004) suggested further division in visuospatial WM - breakdown into visual and spatial components- colour discrimination tasks ( visual) disrupted memory for Chinese symbols (visual) more than memory for dot configurations (spatial) - suggests independent systems
Sequence Position- found where item is placed in sequence affects WM - recalling short verbal sequence- earlier items and end items are recalled better- primacy/ recency- found in verbal tasks (Drewnowski and Murdock 1980) and non verbal (Hurlstone et al 2014)- can be seen for sequences expanding past memory capacity- explained that more attention/ rehearsal- primacy/ recent items stick better- recency and both items stick out more at either end (temporally distinct)
Strats to support working memory function- strat approaches vary across tasks and individuals- people use their own cog toolbox- even within task ppts may switch from one strat to next- some strats material specific eg focussing on certain features of stimuli- other strat- verbal recoding (naming diff stimuli) or verbal rehearsal (co/ overt repetition) or physically enacting movements to mirror visuospatial sequences
People may use elaborate encoding and maintenance techniques- eg mental imagery (Bartsch et al 2025)
chunking (Miller 1956)- stimuli broken into single or associated units- simplified chunked representations- increases amount of info held in WM eg familiar acronyms FBI FAQ LOL instead of letters together (Cowan et al 2004)- similar= grouping effect (Ryan 1969) eg telephone numbers in groups of three- regular interval space not 1 stream
Can WM be improved with repeated practice? can be good for those who might struggle more with WM limits eg neurotypical/ and neurodiverse developmental populations or older adults- extensive training on WM tasks often helps for similar tasks in future- argued due to near transfer- specific skills/ strats that can be transferred between activities/ learn how to draw inferences to complete tasks (learn how to learn) - but doesn’t help far transfer real world outcomes that are more valuable eg fluid intelligence/ education outcomes
-