Langston psy 4040 cognitive psychology notes 4
Download
1 / 117

Short Term - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 225 Views
  • Updated On :

Langston, PSY 4040 Cognitive Psychology Notes 4. Short Term/Working Memory. What do these have in common?. You can still remember details of your tenth birthday party (which you don ’ t need), but you have trouble remembering a definition long enough to write it down.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Short Term' - kineks


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Langston psy 4040 cognitive psychology notes 4 l.jpg

Langston, PSY 4040

Cognitive Psychology

Notes 4

Short Term/Working Memory


What do these have in common l.jpg
What do these have in common?

  • You can still remember details of your tenth birthday party (which you don’t need), but you have trouble remembering a definition long enough to write it down.

  • Pizza I: You look up the number of a pizza delivery place and someone asks you a question before you can make the call. When you go to dial, the number is gone.

  • You’re trying to get the lunch order straight. Three people tell you what they don’t want on their hamburger but you can only remember part of the information.

  • Pizza II. Why can’t you remember a number and talk to someone, but you can remember a number while you look around the room?


What do these have in common3 l.jpg
What do these have in common?

Short-term memory.

  • Two kinds of memory, short and long.

  • The duration is short.

  • The capacity is small.

  • There are different resources available for different tasks.


Architecture l.jpg
Architecture

Recall our box model:

Sensory

Store

Filter

Pattern

Recognition

Selection

STM

LTM

Input

(Environment)

Response


Short term memory l.jpg
Short-Term Memory

  • A brief memory store with a limited capacity that helps you to hold information as you process it.


Themes l.jpg
Themes

  • One STM or many?

  • Is STM really different from Long-Term Memory? (Later in the class, but the foundation will come tonight.)


Two kinds of memory l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • The phenomenological evidence is very strong. Everyone has experienced the phenomenon of having some memories that don’t last long and some that do. What is the evidence for two kinds of memory store?


Two kinds of memory8 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Evidence:

    • The serial position curve.

    • The task: I present you with a list and you recall it. You can recall the words in any order and try to recall as many as you can (called a free recall task).

    • We graph the frequency of recall by serial position in the list (first word, second word, etc.).

    • Looking at that curve can tell us something about memory stores.


Two kinds of memory9 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Here are classic serial position curves (Deese & Kaufman, 1957):

10 item list

32 item list

Deese & Kaufman (1957, p. 182)


Two kinds of memory10 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • It also works for the position in a passage from the World Almanac (Deese & Kaufman, 1957):

Passages

Deese & Kaufman (1957, p. 182)


Two kinds of memory11 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • There are two parts to the curve. The first part is called primacy (it’s the earlier words) and the last part is called recency (it’s the most recent words).


Two kinds of memory12 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Our curves again (Deese & Kaufman, 1957):

Primacy

Deese & Kaufman (1957, p. 182)


Two kinds of memory13 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Our curves again (Deese & Kaufman, 1957):

Recency

Deese & Kaufman (1957, p. 182)


Two kinds of memory14 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • People start by writing down the last words they heard. Recency is high because people just dump out the contents of STM.


Two kinds of memory15 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • You can see that here in the order of recall(Deese & Kaufman, 1957):

Last part recalled first

Deese & Kaufman (1957, p. 182)


Two kinds of memory16 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • When people go back to words they have to try to remember, they produce the recalls that will go into the primacy part. This part is coming from LTM.


Two kinds of memory17 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Try the free recall demonstration here…


Two kinds of memory18 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz (1966):

    • Even though it looks like one curve, it actually reflects two kinds of memory.


Two kinds of memory19 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can test this by thinking of variables that should affect each kind of memory differently.

    • What should affect recency(STM) but not primacy(LTM)?

    • Whether or not people can recall right away. If STM doesn’t last long then having to wait will allow it to go away and there won’t be anything for recency. Since you wait for primacy anyway, it won’t matter.

      • G&C: Make people count backwards before they get to recall.


Two kinds of memory20 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can see the effect of counting backwards:

No counting, standard serial position effect.

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 358)


Two kinds of memory21 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can see the effect of counting backwards:

10 seconds of counting, recency way down.

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 358)


Two kinds of memory22 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can see the effect of counting backwards:

30 seconds of counting, recency gone.

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 358)


Two kinds of memory23 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can see the effect of counting backwards:

Note: You still get primacy no matter the delay.

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 358)


Two kinds of memory24 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can test the two store explanation of the curve by thinking of variables that should affect each kind of memory differently.

    • What should affect primacy(LTM) but not recency(STM)?

    • How much time people have between each item. With more time, there’s more time to rehearse, and more stuff should get into LTM. Since recency isn’t based on how much you rehearse, it shouldn’t be affected.

      • G&C: Space out the words in the list.


Two kinds of memory25 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can see the effect of spacing:

3 seconds, low primacy

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)


Two kinds of memory26 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can see the effect of spacing:

6 seconds, medium primacy

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)


Two kinds of memory27 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can see the effect of spacing:

9 seconds, higher primacy

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)


Two kinds of memory28 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can see the effect of spacing:

Note: You still get recency, and they’re all about the same.

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)


Two kinds of memory29 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can test the two store explanation of the curve by thinking of variables that should affect each kind of memory differently.

    • What else should affect primacy(LTM) but not recency(STM)?

    • How many times people see each item. With more presentations, there’s more time to rehearse, and more stuff should get into LTM. Since recency isn’t based on how much you rehearse, it shouldn’t be affected.

      • G&C: Present the words more than once.


Two kinds of memory30 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can see the effect of presentations:

Once, lower primacy

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)


Two kinds of memory31 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can see the effect of presentations:

Twice or three times, higher primacy

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)


Two kinds of memory32 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Glanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:

    • We can see the effect of presentations:

Note: Recency not affected here either.

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)


Two kinds of memory33 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

  • Research like Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) also represents an important tool in cognitive psychology called the double dissociation.

  • The basic idea is that if different parts of a task use different processes, then different variables will affect those parts differently.


Two kinds of memory34 l.jpg

Two parts of the curve (two kinds of memory):

Two Kinds of Memory

  • This makes it more clear:


Two kinds of memory35 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

Two task parameters:


Two kinds of memory36 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

Expected patterns (in green):

  • This makes it more clear:


Two kinds of memory37 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory

Expected patterns (in green):

  • This makes it more clear:


Two kinds of memory38 l.jpg

Since the patterns are different, it suggests the two kinds of memory are independent.

Two Kinds of Memory

  • This makes it more clear:


Two kinds of memory39 l.jpg
Two Kinds of Memory of memory are independent.

  • Also neuropsychological evidence:

    • HM: Damage to hippocampus when having corpus collosum severed. Could remember old stuff, but could not acquire new memories. Appeared to have STM deficit and transfer deficit (anterograde amnesia).

    • Also people with retrograde amnesia who can learn new things but forget parts of their past.

    • Suggests another type of double dissociation.


Connection l.jpg
Connection of memory are independent.

  • We can address our first question:

    • You can still remember details of your tenth birthday party (which you don’t need), but you have trouble remembering a definition long enough to write it down.

    • Why?


Properties of stm l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Now that we have decided that STM and LTM are separate, what are the properties of STM?

    • Duration.

    • Capacity.

    • Mechanism of forgetting.

    • Representation (code).

    • Search.


Properties of stm42 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Duration:

    • Peterson and Peterson (1959) had people learn a list of three letters, count backwards, and recall it.

    • The counting could go from 0 to 18 seconds.

    • What they found was that after 18 seconds, STM recall was virtually zero.

    • This was the inspiration for Glanzer and Cunitz’s (1966) counting backwards task.

    • Look at the data graph…


Properties of stm43 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Duration:

Peterson & Peterson (1959, p. 195)


Connection44 l.jpg
Connection of memory are independent.

  • Duration:

    • We can answer Pizza I:

    • Pizza I: You look up the number of a pizza delivery place and someone asks you a question before you can make the call. When you go to dial, the number is gone.

    • Why?


Properties of stm45 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • Measured using span tasks.

    • I present you a list of information (e.g., s, r, d, g, n, v, p), and you repeat it back.

    • We make the lists longer until you can’t do it.


Properties of stm46 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • Miller (1956) noted that over a variety of span tasks (letters, digits, words, binary numbers…) people came out with a capacity of 7 plus or minus 2. That’s the capacity (since the task is clearly using STM).


Properties of stm47 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

Miller (1990, p. 349; from Hayes, 1952)


Properties of stm48 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • As Miller (1990) puts it: “Absolute judgment is limited by the amount of information. Immediate memory is limited by the number of items.” (p. 349)

    • We did a span task in CogLab, we can look at the results…


Properties of stm49 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • Note that a process called chunking messes up our measure of span.

    • A chunk is an integrated unit of information. You could remember seven digits, or you could call it “my phone number” and then it’s just one thing.

    • The capacity is really 7 plus or minus 2 chunks.


Properties of stm50 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • Consider this from Miller (1990):

Miller (1990, p. 350)


Properties of stm51 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • Chunking is like “putting it in your own words.” We recode our experience into verbal descriptions all the time.


Properties of stm52 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • To the extent that you have LTM knowledge to use to make chunks, you can have an incredible span.

    • Chase and Simon (1973) found that chess masters could remember more than 7 plus or minus 2 pieces on a board. But, they only did about 8 chunks. They had 10,000 to 100,000 chunks memorized.

    • When the board was arranged at random, they weren’t nearly as good.

    • Learning curves for master, class A player, and beginner…


Properties of stm53 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

Chase & Simon (1973, p. 61)


Properties of stm54 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • Let’s do a chunking example:

    • Remember:

    • A A M L J Y K V C D S F R T E


Properties of stm55 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • Let’s do a chunking example:

    • Recall:


Properties of stm56 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • Now try:

    • A A M L J Y K V C D S F R T E


Properties of stm57 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • Recall:


Properties of stm58 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • Now try:

    • YMCA JFK TV LSD ERA


Properties of stm59 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • Recall:

    • You can go way beyond your “capacity” with chunking.


Connection60 l.jpg
Connection of memory are independent.

  • Capacity:

    • We can answer our third question:

      • You’re trying to get the lunch order straight. Three people tell you what they don’t want on their hamburger but you can only remember part of the information.

      • Why?

      • How could you do better?


Properties of stm61 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Mechanism of forgetting:

    • Decay: The passage of time causes it to fade out. (Analogous to rusting.) But, there’s a mechanism for rusting, shouldn’t there be a mechanism for forgetting?

    • Interference: New stuff coming in makes it hard to keep what you have.


Properties of stm62 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Mechanism of forgetting:

    • Waugh and Norman (1965) manipulated two things:

      • Rate: How fast the material was presented.

      • Number of intervening items: How much material came between the critical item and the chance to recall.

    • Comparing decay and forgetting:

      • If it’s decay, more time equals more loss. So, slower vs. faster should have a big effect.

      • If it’s interference, more material equals more loss, so amount should be the big variable.

    • They found that number of interfering items was the important variable.


Properties of stm63 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Mechanism of forgetting:

    • Try the Waugh and Norman (1965) demonstration…


Properties of stm64 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Mechanism of forgetting:

    • Interference. Two kinds:

      • Retroactive: What we’ve been discussing. Trying to put in new stuff messes up existing stuff.

      • Proactive: All of the old stuff you know is making it hard to fit in new stuff.

        • Learning a new language is an example of this. Trying to learn by working through your old language makes it very difficult. Your existing language interferes.

        • We can try a proactive interference demonstration…


Properties of stm65 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Mechanism of forgetting:

    • Some important points about proactive interference.

      • It makes it hard to learn too much of the same type of stuff at the same time. This has implications for cramming.

      • Release from PI shows the benefit of mixing up the materials that you’re studying.

      • Keppel and Underwood (1962) showed that Peterson and Peterson’s (1959) results were mostly proactive interference. If people learn just one list, count, and recall, you don’t get the forgetting. (Note that it is still interference.)


Properties of stm66 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Code:

    • What is the format of the information?

    • Conrad (1964) had lists of letters that were auditorially confusable (BCPTV and FMNSX). People’s memory confusions with these lists showed that the letters were much more likely to be confused based on sound than on appearance.

    • Wickelgren (1965) would present span tasks like “4NF9G27Z.” When people recalled, their mistakes were based on sound.

    • So, auditory code.


Properties of stm67 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Code:

    • Posner and Keele (1967) presented pairs of letters like A-a or A-A. Participants made a same-different judgment.

    • If the letters were less than 1.5 seconds apart, the appearance mattered (A-A was easier than A-a).

    • After 1.5 seconds, appearance didn’t matter.

    • So, it looks like an early visual code is recoded into an auditory code within 1.5 seconds.


Properties of stm68 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Code:

    • Note that since you get release from PI in a STM task, and release from PI is a semantic task (based on meaning), there must be some representation of semantic information in STM as well.


Properties of stm69 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Search:

    • We’ve been treating STM as a static storage place. We know it doesn’t last long, it doesn’t hold much, and interference is what causes forgetting. We also know it has a variety of information formats.

    • Now let’s think about processing. If you have something in STM and you are asked a question about it, how do you search for it?


Properties of stm70 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Search:

    • Search of STM was the topic for Sternberg (1972).

    • The task was simple:

      • Present a span list of 1-7 items (e.g., 3, 2, 6, 9, 5, 7).

      • Present a test digit (e.g., 2).

      • Participant says whether or not the test digit was on the list.


Properties of stm71 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Search:

    • Sternberg did two things:

      • Improved reaction time methodology by developing something called the “additive factors method.”

      • Learned about short term memory search.

    • We will digress for a moment to look at the additive factors method to help us interpret Sternberg’s results.


Properties of stm72 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Search:

    • The original method was the subtractive method.

    • If there are different stages, find tasks that have different ones of those stages and subtract them.

    • For example, a task that requires you to respond when a light comes on differs from a task that requires you to respond one way to one light and a different way to a different light. (At least a decision stage differs.)


Properties of stm73 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Search:

    • The additive factors method is to manipulate variables that affect different stages and look at how that affects time.

    • You can tell if stages are independent and what goes on inside the stages.


Properties of stm74 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Search:

    • Sternberg broke search up into four stages (starting after the test digit is presented):

      • Encoding.

      • Search.

      • Decision.

      • Response.


Properties of stm75 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Search:

    • Different stages should be influenced by different variables:

      • Encoding: Degraded vs. intact stimulus.

      • Search: How many items are in the memory set.

      • Decision: Yes or no answers.

      • Response: Probability of a particular response.


Properties of stm76 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Search: We will be considering the search stage. How do people search STM?

    • Search in parallel: Search all items at once.

    • Serial search, self-terminating: Search items one at a time, stop when you find it.

    • Serial search, exhaustive: Search items one at a time, search them all regardless of where the item is in the list.

  • Let’s consider each in turn…


Properties of stm77 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Parallel search:


Properties of stm78 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Serial search, self-terminating:


Properties of stm79 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Serial search, exhaustive:


Properties of stm80 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • Sternberg found that the search was serial and exhaustive. It seems counterintuitive, but it makes sense if the search is an automatic process.

  • The function: RT = 38n + 397 (ms)

  • What do we know from that?

    • Each comparison takes 38 ms.

    • Stages 1, 3, and 4 take 397 ms together.

  • Let’s check our CogLab result…


Properties of stm81 l.jpg
Properties of STM of memory are independent.

  • You could also look at other stages using the same technique.


Working memory l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • 2/9/12 Baddeley has added a 4th box

  • Miyake stuff on executive

  • More on definition, see notes throughout.


Working memory83 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • Let’s make a transition. We now have the properties of short term memory, but we’ve been looking at it as a static storage device. What if we thought about its dual role as a storage device and a place where information is manipulated and transformed? That’s working memory.


Working memory84 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • Various attempts to define it…

    • “Working memory can be defined as a flexible, capacity limited, mental workspace used to store and process information in the service of ongoing cognition” (Morrison & Chein, 2011, p. 47).

    • “Working memory (WM) enables the active maintenance of information in a readily accessible state” (Fukuda, Vogel, Mayr, & Awh, 2010, p. 673).


Working memory85 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • Various attempts to define it…

    • “the cognitive system responsible for maintaining information or task goals in an active state over brief periods of time” (McCabe, 2010, p. 868).


Working memory86 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • The appeal of working memory is that its capacity is associated with a number of important variables:

    • “reading comprehension (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Turley-Ames & Whitfield, 2003), episodic memory (McCabe & Smith, 2002; Oberauer, 2005; Park et al., 2002), executive function (Miyake, Friedman, Rettinger, Shah, & Hegarty, 2001), and general fluid intelligence (Engle et al., 1999; Kyllonen & Christal, 1990)” (McCabe, 2010, p. 868).


Working memory87 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • One big change when we think about working memory is in how we measure capacity. We need a task that involves both memory and processing.

    • Reading span: Read a set of sentences, hold the last word of each sentence in memory. After the set, recall. Start with sets of two, then three… The average span is low compared to the regular span tasks (2-5.5).

    • Operation span: Another way of getting at span. See the CogLab results…


Working memory88 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • Changing to working memory also has implications for the structure of the STM box (Baddeley, 1985):

Visuo-spatial

sketchpad

Articulatory loop

Central executive


Working memory89 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • Central executive: Kind of the controller for the system, scheduling tasks, allocating resources, monitoring performance.

    • Generate 100 random letters at one letter per second. It should be tough because the executive must monitor the output (which is automatic, but not favorable to randomness) and the executive must intervene to make those random, plus remember what was recently produced. At a slower rate, this isn’t so tough.


Working memory90 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • Central executive: Evidence:

    • The evidence comes from neuropsychology patients with frontal lobe damage who have difficulties with executive function.


Working memory91 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • Articulatory loop: A slave system for storing verbal information temporarily.

    • Traditional memory span tests could be seen as operating here. A lot of what we’ve said so far about STM could apply to the loop.

    • One observation of the loop is that it seems to have a trace decay forgetting function. The duration it takes to say words is more important than the length of the words in determining forgetting (hence Welsh digit spans).


Working memory92 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • Articulatory loop: Evidence:

    • Conrad showed that letters that were auditorially more confusable (D, C, E) were harder to remember than lists of letters that were visually confusable, but not auditorially similar (B, K, R). (Connect to pattern recognition.)

    • Articulatory suppression (saying “the,” the,” the,”…) makes verbal tasks harder.

    • Duration of materials affects performance.


Working memory93 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • Visuo-spatial sketchpad: A slave system for holding image-type information.

    • People show similar limits on holding visuo-spatial information as they show for lists.

    • A lab task similar to trying to count the number of windows in the house or apartment where you live interferes with image memory tasks.


Working memory94 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • Visuo-spatial sketchpad: Evidence:

    • Scanning time for images is similar to scanning time in the real world.

      • Picture a rabbit by an elephant. Zoom in on the rabbit’s eyelash.

      • Picture a rabbit by a fly. Zoom in on the rabbit’s eyelash.

    • Mentally rotating objects takes longer the farther they have to rotate.

    • It takes longer to imagine walking home carrying a cannonball than a balloon.

    • We’ll see more of this in the imagery unit.


Working memory95 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • How do we know the different systems are independent? Another double dissociation.

    • Participants are in a dual task paradigm:

      • Primary: Either a verbal memory task or a visual memory task.

      • Secondary: Either articulatory suppression or tapping.


Working memory96 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.


Working memory97 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • A pattern like that in the table would suggest that the capacities are independent.

  • We could do something similar with the executive. Generating a string of random letters should interfere with decision-making tasks, we could probably work out double-dissociations.


Working memory98 l.jpg
Working Memory of memory are independent.

  • McCabe (2010) found that how the test is administered can affect the relationship between span and abilities:

    • Experimenter paced: Usually less room for participant manipulation.

    • Self-paced: Participants control it, can “cheat” a little.

    • Limited-pace: Computer controlled.


Connection99 l.jpg
Connection of memory are independent.

  • We can address our final question:

    • Pizza II. Why can’t you remember a number and talk to someone, but you can remember a number while you look around the room?

    • Why?


Working memory applications l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Ashcraft and Krause (2007)

    • Working memory is essential for math performance.

      • Problem-size effect: Larger operands are more difficult to work with (9 x 6 vs. 4 x 5). Smaller ones more frequent in practice, more retrieval-based (automatic). Larger ones strategy (therefore working memory) driven.


Working memory applications101 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Ashcraft and Krause (2007)

    • Problem-size effect:

      • Example: Larger minuends take longer, more errors, more strategy driven.


Working memory applications102 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

Ashcraft & Krause (2007, p. 244)


Working memory applications103 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Ashcraft and Krause (2007)

    • Problem-size effect:

      • People with low capacities or given working memory loads more strongly affected.


Working memory applications104 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Ashcraft and Krause (2007)

    • Working memory is essential for math performance.

      • The number of steps in a problem’s solution is affected by working memory.

      • Carry problems significantly harder.


Working memory applications105 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

Ashcraft & Kirk (2001, p. 230)


Working memory applications106 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Ashcraft and Krause (2007)

    • How does math anxiety affect math performance?

      • Higher math anxiety goes with lower math learning and motivation (overall r= -.31).


Working memory applications107 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Ashcraft and Krause (2007)

    • How does math anxiety affect math performance?

      • Anxiety is associated with decreases on more advanced math.


Working memory applications108 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

Ashcraft & Krause (2007, p. 245)


Working memory applications109 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Ashcraft and Krause (2007)

    • How does math anxiety affect math performance?

      • The value of psychology: After cognitive behavioral interventions to reduce anxiety, math scores reach the normal range. This is with NO new instruction in math.


Working memory applications110 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Ashcraft and Krause (2007)

    • How does math anxiety affect working memory?

      • Capacity is compromised when the task activates anxiety.


Working memory applications111 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Ashcraft and Krause (2007)

    • How does math anxiety affect working memory?

      • 2-letter load:

Ashcraft & Krause (2007, p. 246)


Working memory applications112 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Ashcraft and Krause (2007)

    • How does math anxiety affect working memory?

      • 6-letter load:

Ashcraft & Krause (2007, p. 246)


Working memory applications113 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Ashcraft and Krause (2007)

    • Education:

      • Not a lot of research on working memory and math.

      • Math-anxious individuals will be more strongly impacted the farther they go.

      • Anxiety leads to avoidance, closing off options.

      • Teachers play a role in developing anxiety and its maintenance.


Working memory applications114 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Ashcraft and Krause (2007)

    • Education:

      • Attitudes (like you’re either good or bad at math regardless of work) support anxiety.

      • College majors with the highest levels of math anxiety: Future elementary school teachers.


Working memory applications115 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Where else might working memory capacity be an important predictor of performance?


Working memory applications116 l.jpg
Working Memory Applications of memory are independent.

  • Morrison & Chein (2011) working memory training


End of short term working memory show l.jpg

End of Short Term/Working Memory Show of memory are independent.


ad