Converging sources of evidence and theory integration in working memory: A commentary on Morey, Rhodes, and Cowan (2019)

Abstract

Morey et al. (2019) offer a critique of the dominance of the multiple component framework of working memory in the interpretation of patterns of impairment and sparing in individuals with focal brain damage associated with specific impairments of immediate, serial-ordered verbal recall. They argue that the lack of pure cases of verbal short-term memory impairments, that recognition performance is higher than recall in such patients, that digits are remembered better than other verbal material, and that problems with replicability in patient studies undermine this traditional theoretical interpretation of the impairments from which these patients suffer. They further speculate that an alternative theoretical framework for working memory, incorporating embedded processes and perception-action links offers a more plausible account of the data from these patients. This commentary points to a range of errors and misconceptions in the arguments presented, notably that such patients are not as rare as suggested, that their recognition is actually no better than their recall, that digits offer substantial advantages for memory, and that results have been shown to be replicable between and within individuals. It is proposed that attempts to integrate more recent theoretical developments in working memory with those shown previously to be highly successful in accounting for impairments in these patients, and for generating hypotheses and accounts across a wide range of contexts may be a more fruitful approach to advancing understanding of cognition in the healthy and damaged brain.

Even an activated long-term memory system still needs a separate short-term store: A reply to Cowan (2019).

“…The neuropsychological evidence has recently been the subject of a special issue of the journal Cortex (Papagno & Shallice, 2019). In particular, see Logie (2019) for a critique of Morey, Rhodes, and Cowan (2019). Interestingly, the main theme in that issue is not whether STM and LTM are separate, which was largely taken for granted.…”

The Role of Working Memory, Short-Term Memory, Speed of Processing, Education, and Locality in Verb-Related Morphosyntactic Production: Evidence From Greek

“…That verbal WM and verbal STM (but not nonverbal STM/WM) are involved in verb-related morphosyntactic production suggests that production of verb-related morphosyntactic categories is predominantly supported by domain-specific (and not domain-general) memory resources. This is so because verbal and nonverbal STM systems predominantly rely on domain-specific resources (e.g., Kane et al, 2004 ; Hanley and Young, 2019 ; Logie, 2019 ), and verbal WM relies on domain-general resources to a lesser extent than nonverbal WM (e.g., Vergauwe et al, 2010 ).…”

“…Relatedly, it is not yet clear whether it is domain-specific (i.e., verbal) memory resources or domain-general memory/attentional resources (or both) that support verb-related morphosyntactic production. There is empirical evidence suggesting that (1) the verbal and nonverbal STM systems predominantly rely on domain-specific resources (e.g., Kane et al, 2004 ; Hanley and Young, 2019 ; Logie, 2019 ), whereas the verbal and nonverbal WM systems predominantly rely on domain-general resources (e.g., Kane et al, 2004 ), and (2) nonverbal WM relies on domain-general resources to a greater extent than verbal WM (e.g., Vergauwe et al, 2010 ).…”

Intact high‐resolution working memory binding in a patient with developmental amnesia and selective hippocampal damage

“…However, debate continues concerning the relationship between temporary and long-term retention. This debate has been focused at the theoretical level but has heavily drawn on the neuropsychological literature (see, e.g., Baddeley et al, 2019Baddeley et al, , 2021Buchsbaum & D'Esposito, 2019;Cowan, 1988;Hanley & Young, 2019;Logie, 2019;Morey, 2018;Morey et al, 2019;Shallice & Papagno, 2019).…”