Outline and Evaluate the Working Memory Model free essay sample

The phonological loop (PL) too has a limited capacity and is what deals with auditory information; it is split into two further parts, the phonological store which holds the words you hear, and the articulatory process which is for the words you hear/see and are rehearsed sub-vocally. The visual-spatial sketchpad (VSSP) is the third main component and is used for planning spatial tasks (like walking from one room to another. ) It is also where spatial/visual information is stored temporarily. While visual information is what things look like, spatial information is the relationship between things. Logie (1995) suggested the VSSP can be broken down further into a visual cache and an inner scribe which deals with spatial relations. Additionally, in 2000 the episodic buffer was added by Baddeley because he realised the model needed a general store for things that aren’t specific and dealt with by the PL and VSSP. The episodic buffer integrates information from the central executive, the PL and the VSSP. We will write a custom essay sample on Outline and Evaluate the Working Memory Model or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page It too has a limited capacity. As well as being a vast improvement on the simple and flawed Multi-store model by Atkinson and Shiffrin in 1968, there is much evidence to support each of the components in the model. Firstly, Baddeley and Hitch did a ‘Dual Task’ experiment whereby they asked participants to follow a dot on the wall with a light pointer. Simultaneously they were asked to carry out two other tasks: to describe the angles on the letter ‘F’ and to carry out a simple verbal task. While they found the latter task very easy, they found the angle description task difficult. Baddeley and Hitch concluded that this was because the brain could not carry out tasks which occupied the same component (e. g the light pointer and angle description) due to the limited capacity. However, the brain could cope when the tasks involved separate components (e. g. the light pointer involving the VSSP and verbal task involving the PL. ) Additionally, Bunge (2000) found evidence for the Central executive. Using an fMRI scan, Bunge measured brain activity and found that, unsurprisingly, there was more when carrying out a dual-task. This showed that increased attentional demands are reflected in brain activity. Furthermore, evidence for the articulatory process by Baddeley’s ‘Word length effect’ study, shows that long words aren’t remembered as easily as short because they cannot fit into the PL. It also showed that when given an articulatory suppression task, (e. g. repeating ‘the’ over and over again) you cant rehearse the shorter words quickly enough and the word-length effect disappears. Baddeley also found that when participants were shown words and asked to recall them immediately, they did so much better for sentences than for unrelated words which supports the idea of the episodic buffer- an immediate memory store for items that aren’t visual or phonological. Additionally, the case studies of KF and SC support the model. KF had damage to their STM but their LTM was perfectly intact. Furthermore, his short-term forgetting of auditory information was greater than that of visual information which indicates separate audio/visual stores and that his brain damage was restricted to his phonological loop. As for SC, while their learning abilities were good, when given word pairs presented aloud, they could not learn them, again indicating that there are separate stores. However there are weaknesses of this model. While there are many case studies to support it, the case study of LH suggests that even this model is too simple. LH was ok when it came to spatial tasks but not as good at visual tasks suggesting the VSSP should be broken down further. Additionally, Eslinger and Damasio studied a patient called EVR who was good as reasoning tasks but not at problem solving. This suggests that memory is more complex than this model suggests. The central executive is also criticised. It is very vague and doesn’t explain anything, the function seems to be the same as ‘attention. Finally, the fact that much of the supporting evidence for the WMM comes from case studies must be addressed; case studies are individual cases and therefore cannot be generalised to the wider population. Similarly, cause and effect can’t be distinguished as you can’t make before and after comparisons- it’s unclear as to whether the problems are caused by damage or not. And additionally, the p rocess of brain injury is traumatic; it may be that the trauma of KF’s motorcycle accident is what altered behaviour not the anatomical changes to his brain. Outline and evaluate the working memory model free essay sample Baddeley and Hitch (1974) developed an alternative model of short-term memory which they called the working memory model. The working memory model consists of four components. The central executive which controls and co-ordinates the operation of two subsystems, the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial sketchpad. The central executive controls attention and coordinates the actions of the other components, it can briefly store information, but has a limited capacity. The phonological loop consists of two parts, the articulatory control system and the phonological store. The articulatory control system (the inner voice) where information is rehearsed sub vocally and has a capacity of about 2 seconds. The phonological store (the inner ear) stores information in speech-based form, the speech input is held for a brief duration. The third component, the visuo-spatial sketchpad, mentally manipulates images and space, for example it is used when a person imagines the encodes visual information in terms of separate objects as well as the arrangement of these objects in ones visual field. We will write a custom essay sample on Outline and evaluate the working memory model or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The final component, episodic buffer, receives input from many sources, temporarily stores this information, and then puts them together in order to construct a mental episode of what is being experienced right now. The evidence of the existence of the working memory model offers a better account than the STM component of the multi-store memory model. This is because it moves from describing immediate memory as a unitary store to one with a number of components. The working memory model does not over emphasize the importance of rehearsal for STM retention, in contrast to the multi-store model. It is an optional process rather than the only means by which information is kept in immediate memory. The working memory model also explains many psychological observations. The KF case study supports the Working Memory Model. KF suffered brain damage from a motorcycle accident that damaged his short-term memory. KFs impairment was mainly for verbal information his memory for visual information was largely unaffected. This shows that there are separate STM components for visual information (visuo-spatial sketchpad) and verbal information (phonological loop). However, there are also arguments to suggest weaknesses of the working memory model. The main limitation is the lack of evidence for the central executive, some psychologists believe it is too vague. Critics also feel that the notion of a single central executive is wrong and that there are probably several components. This could make the working memory model appear reductionist because it has only been described as being unitary and over simplified. From this, it could be suggested that it is lacking in detail and is not fully reliable. Finally, much of the supporting evidence for this model comes from the study of brain-damaged individuals, where it is impossible to make before and after comparisons, so it is not clear whether changes in behaviour is caused by the damage. Finally, the process of brain injury is traumatic, which may in itself change behaviour. These factors limit the validity of any conclusions drawn.