Models of Working Memory

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174909

Cited by 817 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present results contribute to discussion of three competing accounts of the FOA, McElree's single item FOA (McElree and Dosher, 1989, 1993; McElree, 2006), Cowan's multiple item FOA (Cowan, 1995, 1999, 2001), and Oberauer's three level model of memory (Oberauer, 2002; Oberauer and Lange, 2009). Importantly, both Oberauer's and McElree's models suggest a one item FOA limited to the final item in a list.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Primacy and recency effects as indices of the focus of attention

Morrison¹,

Conway²,

Chein³

2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ongoing debate surrounds the capacity and characteristics of the focus of attention. The present study investigates whether a pattern of larger recency effects and smaller primacy effects reported in previous working memory studies is specific to task conditions used in those studies, or generalizes across manipulations of task-demand. Two experiments varied task-demands by requiring participants to remember lists of letters and to then respond to a subsequent two-item probe by indicating either the item that was presented later in the list (judgment of recency) or the item was presented earlier (judgment of primacy). Analyses tested the prediction that a WM task emphasizing later items in a list (judgment of recency) would encourage exaggerated recency effects and attenuated primacy effects, while a task emphasizing earlier items (judgment of primacy) would encourage exaggerated primacy effects and attenuated recency effects. Behavioral results from two experiments confirmed this prediction. In contrast to past studies, fMRI contrasts revealed no brain regions where activity was significantly altered by the presence of recency items in the probe, for either task condition. However, presence of the primacy item in the probe significantly influenced activity in frontal lobe brain regions linked to active maintenance, but the location and direction of activation changes varied as a function of task instructions. In sum, two experiments demonstrate that the behavioral and neural signatures of WM, specifically related to primacy and recency effects, are dependent on task-demands. Findings are discussed as they inform models of the structure and capacity of WM.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Primacy and recency effects as indices of the focus of attention

Morrison¹,

Conway²,

Chein³

2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, some researchers have emphasized the unitary nature of working memory (e.g., Engle et al, 1992, 1999; Miyake et al, 2001), whereas others have argued for a more domain-specific view and proposed that working memory consists of multiple separable subsystems (e.g., Daneman and Tardif, 1987; Just and Carpenter, 1992; Caplan and Waters, 1999; MacDonald and Christiansen, 2002). As Miyake and Shah (1999) observed, however, it is not always clear whether, despite their apparent opposition, these different perspectives are fundamentally incompatible or rather reflect differences in emphasis. The conceptualization of central memory resources adopted in this paper is liberally neutral with respect to this debate: it corresponds to the theoretical construct commonly used in cognitive psychology (cf.…”

Section: The Psycholinguistic Processing Of Sismentioning

confidence: 99%

Scalar implicatures: working memory and a comparison with only

Marty¹,

Chemla²

2013

Front. Psychol.

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Scalar Implicature (SI) arises when the use of a relatively weak sentence (e.g., some politicians are corrupt) implies the denial of an alternative, stronger sentence (e.g., not all politicians are corrupt). The cognitive effort associated with the processing of SIs involves central memory resources (De Neys and Schaeken, 2007; Dieussaert et al., 2011; Marty et al., 2013). The goal of this study is to locate this previous result within the current psycholinguistic debate, and to understand at which level of SI processing these resources are specifically involved. Using a dual-task approach, we show that (1) tapping participant's memory resources interferes with the derivation of SIs, whereas (2) it does not affect the interpretation of sentences involving similar competition mechanisms between a sentence and potential alternatives through the use of only (e.g., only some politicians are corrupt). We explain how these findings suggest that the central memory resources are not involved in the core process at the source of SIs, and discuss how this difference between SIs and only bears on recent linguistic debates on the division of labor between grammar and pragmatics.

show abstract

“…What is known within this population is that working memory is fractionated into several inter-related components, generally supporting the Baddeley (2000, 2012) model. Although several alternative working memory models exist (e.g., Ericsson and Kintsch, 1995; Cowan, 1999; Oberauer, 2010), Baddeley’s (2000) was selected as the theoretical basis for this study, as there appears to be the most theoretical consensus around this model, it is the most widely researched with pediatric populations, and it can be readily operationalized by psychometric measurement (Miyake and Shah, 1999). According to this model, working memory comprises three storage components, namely a visuospatial sketchpad (specialized for briefly holding and refreshing visual and spatial material), a phonological loop (responsible for auditory-verbal material), and an episodic buffer (responsible for integrating different types of material into meaningful episodes and communicating with long-term memory).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working Memory Profiles in HIV-Exposed, Uninfected and HIV-Infected Children: A Comparison with Neurotypical Controls

Milligan

Cockcroft

2017

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the working memory profiles of three groups of children, namely HIV-infected (HIV-I; n = 95), HIV-exposed, uninfected (HIV-EU; n = 86) and an HIV-unexposed, uninfected, (HIV-UU; n = 92) neurotypical control group. Working memory, an executive function, plays an important role in frontal lobe-controlled behaviors, such as motivation, planning, decision making, and social interaction, and is a strong predictor of academic success in school children. Memory impairments have been identified in HIV-I children, particularly in visuospatial processing. Verbal working memory has not been commonly investigated in this population, while it is unknown how the working memory profiles of HIV-EU children compare to their HIV-I and HIV-UU peers. Of interest was whether the working memory profiles of the HIV-EU children would be more similar to the HIV-I group or to the uninfected control group. The results revealed no significant differences in working memory performance between the HIV-I and HIV-EU groups. However, this does not mean that the etiology of the working memory deficits is the same in the two groups, as these groups showed important differences when compared to the control group. In comparison to the controls, the HIV-I group experienced difficulties with processing tasks irrespective of whether they drew on a verbal or visuospatial modality. This appears to stem from a generalized executive function deficit that also interferes with working memory. In the HIV-EU group, difficulties occurred with verbally based tasks, irrespective of whether they required storage or processing. For this group, the dual demands of complex processing and using a second language seem to result in demand exceeding capacity on verbal tasks. Both groups experienced the greatest difficulties with verbal processing tasks for these different reasons. Thus, disruption of different cognitive abilities could result in similar working memory profiles, as evidenced in this study. This has implications for the underlying developmental neurobiology of HIV-I and HIV-EU children, as well the choice of appropriate measures to assist affected children.

show abstract

Models of Working Memory

Cited by 817 publications

References 0 publications

Primacy and recency effects as indices of the focus of attention

Primacy and recency effects as indices of the focus of attention

Scalar implicatures: working memory and a comparison with only

Working Memory Profiles in HIV-Exposed, Uninfected and HIV-Infected Children: A Comparison with Neurotypical Controls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About