1. Working Memory cont. Demos and reviews
PSY 368 Human Memory
Working Memory cont.
Demos and reviews

2. Baddeley’s Model Articulatory Visual scribe Control
Episodic buffer = back-up storage - allows for recall when other systems are engaged with other tasks

3. Phonological Loop
Two parts: Phonological Store (PS) and Articulatory Control Process (ACP)
PS - stores auditory info for 1-2 s and then it starts to decay
ACP - recodes visual info into auditory code for storage and controls rehearsal
4 Main Effects in Serial Recall Task to account for
Phonological similarity effect
Articulatory suppression effect
Irrelevant speech effect
Word length effect
This model of the phonological loop is consistent with several memory effects:

4. Phonological Loop Demos Listen to list, recall words in order
Listen to list, recall words in order, while I read the words say ‘the’ aloud
Listen to list, recall words in order, while I read the words say ‘the’ aloud
Read list, recall words in order, while I read the words say ‘the’ aloud
Rhinoceros
Zinc
Gorilla
Tuberculosis
Measles
Calcium
Uranium
Carbon
Hippopotamus
Mumps
Planet
Musician
Land
Property
Trumpet
House
Star
Comet
Orchestra
Moon
Bronze
Book
Magazine
Bike
Copper
Dress
Copier
Soda
Shoe
Rock
Block
Brick
Stick
Blue
Chew
Trick
Prick
Clue
Click
Blimp
Gold
Code
Bold
Hold
Told
Cold
Mode
Slowed
Hope
Goad
Word list: rhinoceros (4), zinc (1), gorilla (3), tuberculosis (5), measles (2),
calcium (3), uranium (4), carbon (2), hippopotamus (5), mumps (1)
Count backward from 756

5. Phonological Loop Phonological Similarity Effect
e.g., Baddeley (1966)
List 1 (Easy to remember/dissimilar phonology and semantics):
PIT, DAY, COW, PEN, HOT
List 2 (Only slightly harder than List #1/similar semantics) :
HUGE, WIDE, BIG, LONG, TALL
List 3 (Much harder than List #1/similar phonology) :
CAT, MAP, MAN, CAP, MAD
Memory worse for items that sound alike than those that look alike or have similar meanings
Visual items are recoded to auditory for storage and rehearsal by ACP
Works for both auditory presentation and visual presentation of the letters.
We talked about this last time in terms of studies that compared letters that
looked or sounded alike (Conrad) and words that had similar meanings or
sounded alike (Baddeley).
What happens if you prevent the recoding of visual information into auditory information?

6. Phonological Loop Articulatory Suppression Effect
Engaging in an auditory task after study removes phonological similarity effect for visual items
Procedure: Say “the” aloud over and over
No re-coding of visual info by ACP
Phonological info gets in directly, doesn’t need re-coding
Auditory presentation: PGTCD (similar sounding) harder to recall than RHXKW (different sounding)
Auditory task = repeating “the”
Also lowers auditory recall
With suppression
Visual presentation: PGTCD (similar sounding) recalled equally as RHXKW (different sounding)
No re-coding, so no chance for similar sounds to interfere

7. “nine six seven eight three two”
Phonological Loop
Irrelevant Speech Effect
Background speech presented during study decreases memory for visual items
Salame & Baddeley (1982) 9 6 7 8 3 2
‘one’ ‘four’ ‘five’ Semantically similar
‘tun’ ‘sore’ ‘fate’ Phonologically similar
‘tennis’ ‘double’ Phonologically different
Quiet control
“nine six seven eight three two”
Presumably, there is still something stored in the visuospatial sketchpad, but
this system not as efficient as the phonological loop

8. Phonological Loop Irrelevant Speech Effect Conclusions:
Background speech presented during study decreases memory for visual items
Salame & Baddeley (1982)
Amount of disruption is determined by phonological similarity
In other experiments
showed no word-length effect for irrelevant speech
If rehearsal is prevented, irrelevant speech effect disappeared
Presumably, there is still something stored in the visuospatial sketchpad, but
this system not as efficient as the phonological loop
Conclusions:
Irrelevant speech interferes with recoding of visual info to auditory

9. Phonological Loop Word-length Effect Results
Baddeley, Thomson, and Buchanan (1975)
Results
Recall decreases as the length of time it takes to say a word increases.
Rehearsal takes longer for longer words - can’t rehearse as many times
Word list: rhinoceros (4), zinc (1), gorilla (3), tuberculosis (5), measles (2),
calcium (3), uranium (4), carbon (2), hippopotamus (5), mumps (1)
Count backward from 756
Retrieval from PS also takes longer due to auditory coding of items
Reading rate correlated with memory ability
Digit span depends on language - how long it takes to say numbers

10. Baddeley’s Model Potential Problems with the model
Some of the supportive results can’t be replicated (e.g., irrelevant speech effect)
Model can’t explain all results:
why word-length effect is larger for visual than auditory items
why it differs based on serial list position
Why some effects persist after extended delays (e.g., 5 mins)
Model is not precise in explanation of effects
Irrelevant speech effect failed to be replicated by some later studies. Other
studies found that the effect is produced with a non-speech sound (tone).
Some critics prefer a more quantitative model that can make more specific
predictions and has more precise explanations of certain phenomena (e.g.,
Nairne model).

11. Cowan’s Activation Model
WM = info that is currently highly activated from STM or LTM
Focus of attention
Emphasizes attention’s role in activation
Activation of info when attention is oriented to it
Activation will decay to cause loss of info from WM (also interference)
STM
Activation is proposed to increase when attention is paid to items in WM. WM

12. Cowan’s Activation Model
Central Executive
Focuses attention and other control processes
Capacity of about 4 chunks
Duration of 20s without reactivation
STM
activated items that are just outside of attention - passive store
Things within attentional focus are available to consciousness
STM
Outside of attention = not activated enough to be within conscious attention WM

13. Cowan’s Activation Model
Potential problems with the model
Only general descriptions so specific predictions are hard to make
Activation is not operationally defined very well - when is something is “activated”?
What causes decay? Passage of time isn’t causal

14. Nairne’s Feature Model
Items represented in WM as individual features (e.g., color, length, etc.)
Features indicate
presentation info (e.g., font, size, gender of voice, etc.)
meaning info (e.g., what the item means, category, etc.)
Stays the same regardless of presentation
Features represented by -1 or +1 when studied
(yes or no for a feature, 0 if no info for feature)
Interference: Later items with same features overwrite feature info for previous items
Developed to address some criticisms of Baddeley and Cowan models -
quantitative to make more specific predictions - interference instead of decay,
etc.

15. Nairne’s Feature Model
Bold Lower Upper Blue
SCHOOL
fish
• “fish” presented after “SCHOOL”
- features in common can be overwritten - SCHOOL can become 0, -1, +1, 0
- interference
During retrieval, item features are compared with items in memory - lost features can be updated and restored
0 = no info available for that feature

16. Nairne’s Feature Model
Quantitative model - numerical predictions are possible - can simulate data to generate predictions for studies
Simulations show that model can predict:
1) Recency effect
2) Suffix effect
3) Phonological similarity effect
4) Word length effect
Simulations done in studies show that the feature model can predict these effects:
Based on overwriting aspect of model - #4 due to more features to encode in longer words so more errors possible
Recall that the suffix effect is a reduction of the recency effect when an
auditory item follows the last item in the list.

17. Summary of WM Focus on processing (vs. storage)
Three main modern models
Baddeley model
Central executive controls VS, PL, EB
Cowan activation model
WM = attention focus, STM = activated
Nairne feature model (quatitative)
Items coded as features with overwriting interference
Parsimony is one of the canons of the scientific method.

18. Exam 1 review Chapters 1-4 Baddeley’s model Phonological loop
Ebbinhaus and forgetting curve
Episodic buffer
Seven Sins of Memory
Visuo-spatial buffer
Review of research methods
Cowan’s model
Modal systems theory(ies) of memory
Nairne’s model
Sensory memory
Duration, capacity, encoding, retrieval from the different memory systems
Iconic and echoic
Partial report task
Various Effects (suffix, modality, etc.)
Short term memory
Identify the “classic experiments & researchers”
Chunking
Serial and free recall
Recency and primacy
Working memory
Parsimony is one of the canons of the scientific method.