Immediate Memory
______
1) Provide a historical perspective on the study of the conscious portion of memory.
2) Present the key components of the ‘modal’ model of memory (Atkinson & Shiffrin) along with the empirical data that support/contradict the model.
3) Discuss several reasons why researchers have become dissatisfied with the ‘modal’ model.
4) Describe the architecture of the WM model and the empirical data that support/contradict the model.
- Central executive
- Phonological loop
- Visuo-spatial sketchpad
5) Review two recent attempts to update the WM model:
- Activation models
- Feature models
Historical Perspectives on Immediate Memory
______
Different theories … different names
- Working Memory
- working memory
- STM
- primary memory
Theoretically neutral terms
- Immediate memory
- Contents of consciousness
______
Out with the old, in with the new
- Unitary vs. multi-faceted construct
- Associationism vs. strategic behavior
- Behaviors vs. peering inside the box
Limited Capacity of Immediate Memory
______
Demo:
- Multiply 26 X 34
- List the days of the week in reverse order
- Draw a map of the Amherst College Campus
- Do the Hustle.
______
Q: how much information can it hold?
A1: 7 +/- 2 items
A2: Whoa! What about experts?
Q: Why do capacity constraints matter?
A: Because they suggest that we can split immediate memory off from the unconscious information. Now we have 2 systems to examine.
Q: But what would be sufficient proof?
- Different properties
- Respond differently to experimental variables
- Make separate contributions to memory
Let’s give it a name
______
Conscious / UnconsciousWaugh & Norman / Primary / Secondary
Atkinson & Shiffrin / STM / LTM
We are going to use the A&S terminology because:
- STM and LTM captures an important distinction between the two proposed memory systems
- A&S introduced terminology to describe the subjects mental activity
- rehearsal
- search
- transfer
Distinguishing STM & LTM: Different Properties I
______
STM / LTMCapacity / 7 2 / functionally infinite
Duration / relatively brief / relatively long
Serial Position Effects / Recency / Primacy
Supportive Data for Serial Position Effects:
- Rundus & Atkinson (1970) – # of rehearsals correlated with primacy, not recency.
Distinguishing STM & LTM: Different Properties II
______
More on Serial Positions Effects:
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966) –
Distinguishing STM & LTM: Different Properties III
______
Maintenance of information
STMrehearsal
EX: new cutie’s phone #
LTMrehearsal
EX: current email address
old email addresses
Effect of Decay
STM
LTM
Effect of interference
STM
EX: new cuties’ phone #
LTM
EX: current email address
But: old phone #s / email addresses
Distinguishing STM & LTM: Experimental Manipulations and Separate Contributions
______
Experimental Manipulations
What does it take to eliminate primacy and recency?
- How can you get rid of primacy?
A:
- How can you get rid of recency?
A:
Confusion errors
STM (short RI, lists)
LTM (long RI, lists)
Separability of function
Two letters: HM
- Normal LTM
- Highly impaired STM (across delays)
- Specific implications
- Transfer
- Neural correlate
Critics of the two-store model
______
Primacy / Recency effects
- Primacy without
- Recency with RIs
- Continual distractor paradigm
- Bjork & Whitten (1974)
Is rehearsal necessarily correlated with memory?
Confusion errors are not so cut and dried
- STM - some
- LTM - some
True separability is logically impossible
- Semanticity affects STM
- LTM retrieval must involve STM
The next step: Working Memory
Baddeley & Hitch (1974)
______
Q: What made modal model revolutionary?
A:
Working Memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)
Emphasized over
Why jump on the WM bandwagon?
- Digit spanvs. working memory span
- Builds on the advantages of the modal model
- More in step with cognitive revolution
- Can I remember new cutie’s phone # vs.
- Is it safe to cross Rte. 9?
Architecture of the Working Memory model
______
Theoretical approach
Immediate memory= workbench of the mind
- What do you need to build a house?
- General Contractor
- Expertise
- Workers
- Tools
- Raw Materials
Working Memory
- Central Executive
- Strategies, experience
- Phonological Loop
- Phonological store
- Articulatory control process
- Visuo-spatial sketch pad
- Mental capacity / energy (limited)
Working memory: Overview
______
The CE co-ordinates all mental activity.
- How the problem will be solved:
- Schedules tasks
- Allocates
- Chooses which subsystems to employ:
- How to efficiently
Two lackies:
Phonological Loop
Auditory / linguistic information
VSSP
Visual information
Working memory: Behavioral support for the
existence of the Central Executive
______
Concurrent task paradigm –
Primary task: mental arithmetic
Function of CE?
Secondary tasks:
- random sequence generation
- abstract line drawings
- simple motor sequence.
Typical results:
Which has the biggest dual task cost?
Problems:
Relation to personal experience:
Working memory: Neuropsych support for the
existence of the Central Executive
______
Dysexecutive syndrome – Frontal lobe damage
Case study
- EVR –lost decision making ability
Behavioral tasks
- Wisconsin Card Sort
- Verbal fluency tasks
- Copying simple motor behaviors
- Stroop task
Two classes of errors
- inferior and orbital frontal cortex
- dorsolateral frontal cortex
Neuroimaging data
Frontal lobe activation consistently tied to adoption of
- Detecting novelty
- Difficult conditions of the Stroop
Working Memory: Training the Central Executive
______
Space Fortress improves with practice.
Big Question: How do we know this relates to CE?
A:
Bigger Question: What does Space Fortress have to do with Piloting?
A:
Biggest Question: Why is this such a big question?
A:
Working Memory: Phonological Loop
______
Phonological store
Function:
Articulatory control process
Function 1: converts visual information
Function 2: refreshes memory traces in Phonological Store via
Capacity of Phonological loop
Decay rate
Rehearsal rate
Demo:
Phonological loop: what is it good for?
______
Phonological similarity effect – immediate memory is worse for
Why?
Word-length effect – longer words are more
Why?
Articulatory suppression – repeating a nonsense syllable
Why?
Secondary prediction: larger effect on visual presentation than auditory presentation. Why?
Irrelevant speech effect - Recall visually presented consonants either in silence or while listening to irrelevant speech
Prediction:
Explanation:
Effect of articulatory suppression:
Effect of irrelevant music:
Note: data are mixed
Martin, Wogalter, & Forlano (1988)
______
What was the goal of the research?
They wanted to examine whether unattended
Why were they interested in that?
- Does background noise
- Is phonological representation
- Previous data were
- Auditory vs. visual presentation
- Meaningfulness of stimuli
- verbatim recall or comprehension
Experiment 1: Speech vs. Music?
Method:
- continuous spoken speech
- random speech
- instrumental music
- random tones
- silence.
Results:
- Continuous and random speech
Martin, Wogalter, & Forlano (1988) II
______
Experiment 2 – Music vs. language
Method:
- Sung lyrics vs. spoken lyrics vs. no lyrics
- with or without musical accompaniment.
Results:
- Sung lyrics not different from
Experiment 3 – speech more distracting in general?
Method:
- Spech vs. musical background
Results:
- Music more
Experiment 4 – Semanticity?
Results:English Russian White noise
Experiment 5– Phonology?
- English non-words
______
What is the overall interpretation?
- Phonological interference does not affect
- Relation to WM model? Function of PL?
Balch and Lewis (1996)
______
Theoretical question: How does music produce CDM?
Empirical question: How will manipulating various aspects of the music affect CDM?
Experiment 1:
Key manipulations:Melody and Tempo
Results:
- Changing melody did
- Changing tempo did
Experiment 2:
Key manipulations:Tempo and Timbre
Results:
- Changing timbre did
- Chaning tempo did
Experiment 3:
Key manipulation: Timbre and Tempo
Results:
- Timbre change did
- Tempo change did
Balch and Lewis (1996)
______
Experiment 4:
Key manipulation:
Tempo at encoding
Induced mood at test
Results:
Match facilitated
Implications:
Music influences memory by
______
Questions:
- So, you and your roommate are studying for your Memory exam. S/he says, do you mind if I turn on the stereo? What do you say?
- What do you think about IMing, texting, and so forth while studying?
- How should our legal institutions resolve the issue of driving while talking on the cell phone?
Fürst and Hitch (2000)
______
Theoretical Question:
Empirical Question: Will secondary tasks designed to stress the CE and PL produce differential performance deficits on a primary mental arithmetic task?
What are the three component processes
Experiment 1:
Q: What does the PL do?
A:
Q: How would you interfere with the PL?
A:
Method:
- Articulatory suppression or silence
- Math problem remained in view or not
Results:
- AS interfered with performance, but
Interpretation:
Fürst and Hitch (2000): What about the CE?
______
Experiment 2:
Q: How does the CE contribute to mental math?
A:
Q: How did they tax the CE?
A:
Method:
Completed trails task with visible math problems
Results:
- Dual task math performance
- Vast majority of errors
- Trails task varied inversely
Experiment 3:
Q: Did # of carries influence trails performance because carrying takes time?
A: Length of trails task unrelated to # of errors
Dual task influenced errors on trail task
Fürst and Hitch (2000): What does it all mean?
______
Implications:
- PL: retains needed
- CE:
- Independent functions constitutes convincing evidence for
Questions:
- How can we explain discrepancies with previous research regarding the role of WM in carrying during mental arithmetic?
- Forgetting a carry common; mistakenly including a carry was uncommon. What does that imply?
- Are the functions of the PL and CE completely independent?
Critiques of Working Memory
______
Consistency
- Word length effects
- Irrelevant speech effects
- Is articulatory rate related to
- Neuropsych data:
If reduced spans caused by faulty ACP, then should be immune to articulatory suppression.
Model is overly descriptive
EX:
Qualitative rather than quantitative
- Makes it difficult to falsify
______
Overall evaluation
- Extremely valuable
- Needs further development / specification
What else is out there? Feature models
______
Feature model (Nairne, 1990)
- Similar to the way a computer represents information (binary code)
How might you represent a person?
Important features of Feature Models
______
One data point is meaningless
- It's the overall pattern
- Thus, you don't need many features to distinguish between objects
320 =
Two kinds of features
- Modality-dependent
- Modality-independent.
- Note: feature models do not posit different stores for different kinds of information.
How do feature models work?
______
Distinction between primary and secondary memory
Primary memoryconsciousness.
Secondary memorystorehouse of knowledge
Primary functions
Primary Memory:
- assemble and maintain cues that will aid subsequent memory searches.
Secondary Memory:
- permanent storage of knowledge
How does memory work?
Encoding:
1st items features are activated
2nd items features are activated
- overlap and interfere with 1st item
3rd items features are activated
- overlap / interfere with items 1 and 2
Test:
Match degraded cues with items in secondary memory
How do Feature Models account for different effects?
______
Recency
Features of final item
Suffix Effect
Features of final item
Phonological similarity
Similar items have more overlapping features.
Articulatory suppression
Features of the repeated item are incorporated into the cue used to retrieve each item.
Word-length effect
The more features there are, the more opportunities
EX: 5-piece jigsaw puzzle vs.
100-piece jigsaw puzzle
Evaluation of Feature Models
______
Negatives:
weak on SP effects
Positives:
Much more explicit model than WM
Question to ponder:
How could you use feature models to simulate the advantage of spaced over massed practice?