WORKING MEMORY

MODEL
• The multi-store model raises further questions about memory. For instance, how does rehearsal
take place in short-term memory? Is there only one kind of short-term memory, or are there
several?

• The working memory model is a more developed version of the multi-store model, updated to
reflect the latest research on the workings of short-term memory. Short-term memory is
renamed as working memory, because it functions as a sort of "mental workspace", allowing
your mind to temporarily hold information as some cognitive task is being performed.

• Research revealed some phenomena that did not fit well with the view of STM as a unitary
system. These “uncomfortable” results came from research studies that utilized the dual-task
technique.
• In this technique, the participant is required to perform two memory operations simultaneously, for
example, listen to a list of words (auditory stimulus) and memorize a series of geometrical shapes (visual
stimulus).

• If STM really is a unitary store, the two sets of stimuli should interfere with each other, so memory will
be limited by 7±2 units of whatever modality. However, it was discovered that in some cases performing
a simultaneous task does not interfere with memory performance.

• Furthermore, the working memory model also distinguishes between different short-term
memory stores, which explains why certain memory tasks (but not others) interfere with
one another. (song and ability to memorise digits)
To explain these conflicting findings, Baddeley and Hitch (1974) developed the working
memory model. This model focuses on the structure of STM.
• The visuospatial sketchpad (“the inner eye” holds visual and spatial information) is the
visual & spatial component of short-term memory. It is like an "inner eye"
that can visualize a mental picture, from either your sensory memory or
your long-term recollection.

• For instance, if you visualize the route you travel to school each day, you are
using your visuo-spatial sketchpad to "see" a mental picture of your journey
to school.
• The phonological loop holds sound information. This is the verbal component of short-term
memory. It is further subdivided into

• the phonological store (“the inner ear”) and stores auditory information for a brief period of
time - just 1.5 - 2 seconds. The inner ear holds sound in a passive manner, for example, it holds
someone’s speech as we hear it

• the articulatory rehearsal component (“the inner voice”). used when mentally repeating
information to yourself, like a telephone number. If your "inner voice" repeats information,
your "inner ear" hears that information and briefly remembers it, and the cycle repeats
itself until it is embedded in long-term memory.
• The inner voice, performs the following important functions

• First, it turns visual stimuli into sounds. For example, if we are shown a list of written words,
we may subvocally pronounce these words, changing the modality from visual to auditory, and
the words will enter our STM through the auditory channel.

• Second, it allows the rehearsal of information held in the inner ear. By constantly repeating
the words, we are increasing the duration of working memory and increasing the chances of
transferring the information further into long-term memory storage.
• The central executive is a system that allocates resources between the visuospatial
sketchpad and the phonological loop. In this sense, it is the “manager” for the other
two systems.

• The most important function of the central executive is attention control -

directing your memory subsystems to focus on the task at hand, or
switching from one task to the next. For example, when sitting in class, your
central executive must ensure that attention is given to the teacher (rather
than daydreaming about your weekend) for any memory of the lesson to be
stored
• Episodic buffer:

• In 2000 Baddeley and Hitch also added the fourth component, the episodic buffer, as a component that integrates
information from the other components and also links this information to long-term memory structures.

• This is a sort of mental "TV screen" where all the information from your senses, short-term and long-
term memory is projected, ready for you to make use of. The episodic buffer explains how we can
integrate and make use of information from different memory stores, and some researchers believe
the episodic buffer is the source of consciousness
• .

THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL

 EVALUATING
WORKING MODEL
• This model explains why it is possible to multi-task on some occasions, but not others. As
long as the two tasks utilize different short-term memory systems (for instance, driving a
car, which utilizes the visuo-spatial sketchpad, while talking to a friend, which utilizes the
phonological loop), it is possible to perform well on both tasks. However, if the two tasks
involve the same memory system (for instance, talking with a friend while trying to do
mental arithmetic, which both utilize the phonological loop), multi-tasking is nearly
impossible

• How the different memory systems interact with each other is not entirely clear. Although
the episodic buffer has been proposed as a bridge between the different memory systems,
how the episodic buffer actually works is difficult to fully explain

• The working model memory explains short-term memory well, but says very little about
long-term memory, and does not explain how long-term memories may become lost,
distorted, or fabricated
RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY: LANDRY AND
BARTLING (2011)
• Landry and Bartling (2011) conducted an experiment using articulatory suppression to test the Working
Memory Model.

• Aim: Investigate the effects of "multi-tasking" when both tasks utilize the same working memory
system - in this case, the phonological loop

• The aim was to investigate if articulatory suppression would influence recall of a written list of
phonologically dissimilar letters in serial recall.

• The experiment used independent designs with two groups: a control group that performed no concurrent
task while memorizing a list and an experimental group, which performed the concurrent task of
articulatory suppression while memorizing a list.
• The participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions.

• The hypothesis was that the accuracy of serial recall would be higher in the control group
compared to the experimental group.
• The participants consisted of thirty-four undergraduate psychology students.
Procedure
• The participants were tested individually. In the experimental group, participants first saw a list
of letters that they had to recall while saying the numbers '1' and '2' at a rate of two numbers
per second (the articulatory suppression task). The control group saw the list of letters but did
not engage in an articulatory suppression task.
• There were ten lists each consisting of a series of 7 letters randomly constructed from the
letters F,K,L,M, R, X and Q. These letters were chosen because they don't sound similar. The
experimenter presented one letter series at a time. The participants received an answer sheet
with seven blanks in each row. Before the experiment started, each participant viewed one
practice list in order to become acquainted with the procedure.
• In the control group, the experimenter showed participants a printed list for five
seconds, instructed them to wait for another five seconds, and then instructed
them to write the correct order of the letters on the answer sheet as accurately
as possible.
• This was repeated ten times.

• In the experimental group, participants received instructions to repeatedly say

the numbers '1' and '2' at a rate of two numbers per second from the time of
presentation of the list until the time they filled the answer sheet.
• This was also repeated ten times.

• Each trial was scored for accuracy of recall. The trial was scored as correct if
the letters were in the correct position. The experimenter then calculated the
average percent correct recall for both groups.
Results
• The results showed that the scores from the experimental group were much
lower than the scores from the control group.

• The mean percent of accurate recall in the control group was 76% compared to
a mean of 45% in the experimental group. Although the difference in the means
was large, the standard deviations were nearly identical with SD = 0.13 for the
control group and SD = 0.14 for the experimental group.

• A T-test was calculated and found a significant difference of p < 0.01.

• The results supported the experimental hypothesis as the mean percent of accurate recall in the control
group was higher than the mean percent of accurate recall in the experimental group and the t-test
showed that the results are significant at p < 0.01.

• The data seems to support the prediction of the Working Memory Model that disruption of the phonological
loop through the use of articulatory suppression results in less accurate working memory. In line with the
model's prediction, articulatory suppression is preventing rehearsal in the phonological loop because of
overload.

• This resulted in difficulty in memorizing the letter strings for participants in the experimental conditions
whereas the participants in the control condition did not experience such overload. This experiment is
asking participants to remember strings of random letters in order to test a specific part of the working
memory and it can be argued that although this does not resemble a task that you would do in your
everyday life.

• However, it could resemble what is happening during multi-tasking - for example, when you are trying to
study for a psychology test while at the same time talking to a friend on the phone.
• Conclusion

• Repeating the numbers "1" and "2" made it more difficult to mentally
rehearse the string of letters, resulting in diminished memory

• This study suggests that multi-tasking leads to impaired working memory,

especially when both tasks utilize the same working memory system (in this
case, the phonological loop)
• Evaluation

• This was a well-controlled lab experiment, demonstrating a clear causal

relationship between the independent variable (single vs. multi-tasking) and
the dependent variable (recall of letters)

• Supports the predictions of the working memory model, in particular the

idea that each memory system has limited capacity

• Since this experiment involved memorizing random strings of letters, a task

not normally important for everyday life, this experiment may be low in
ecological validity. However, this study may help understand the risks of
multi-tasking in the real world
 EVALUATION OF WORKING
MEMORY MODEL
• Overall, the strength of the working memory model is that it is more sophisticated than the multi-store memory model
and allows us to explain a wider range of phenomena (for example, participants’ performance in the dualtask technique
or observable effects of articulatory suppression).

• The model can integrate a large number of ndings from work on short-term memory. Subsequent research has also
shown that there are physiological correlates to some of the separate components of the model. For example, distinctly
different brain parts “light up” in brain scanning images when the task activates either the phonological loop or the
visuospatial sketchpad.

• Finally, on the plus side, the working memory model does not overemphasize the role of rehearsal.
• models of this degree of complexity are harder to test empirically. You must have noticed that all the experiments,
however complicated, are only designed to test one specific aspect of the model (for example, the central executive).

• For complex models, it becomes increasingly difficult to design well controlled studies that would test the model in
its entirety. This means that the model is difficult to falsify. Maybe as a consequence of this, and due to the existence
of multiple potential explanations of the same experimental result, the exact role of some of the components of the
model (the central executive and especially the episodic buffer) remains unclear.

• Similarly, it has been argued that the visuospatial sketchpad should be further divided into two separate components,
one for visual information and one for spatial information.

• Finally, working memory only involves STM and does not take into account other memory structures, such as LTM
and sensory memory