The development of memory maintenance: Children’s use of phonological rehearsal and attentional refreshment in working memory tasks

Tam, Helen; Jarrold, Christopher; Baddeley, Alan; Sabatos‐DeVito, Maura

doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.05.006

Cited by 77 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results therefore are in line with the view that the ISE is underpinned by the use of serial rehearsal but also that the greater vulnerability of children to the ISE may be related to the underdevelopment of rehearsal skill at this developmental stage (e.g., Tam et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Given the important role ascribed to serial rehearsal in the ISE in adults, one of the chief questions we address in the present study is whether the inchoate state of children's rehearsal skill plays a role in their increased susceptibility to the effect (Tam, Jarrold, Baddeley, & Sabatos-DeVito, 2010). The efficiency of rehearsal processes is thought to increase with development during childhood (e.g., Flavell, Beach, & Chinsky, 1966;Tam et al, 2010; but see also Jarrold & Citroën, 2013).…”

Section: Distraction In Verbal Short-term Memory: Insights From Develmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The efficiency of rehearsal processes is thought to increase with development during childhood (e.g., Flavell, Beach, & Chinsky, 1966;Tam et al, 2010; but see also Jarrold & Citroën, 2013). Recent evidence suggests that relatively young children's (age 8) rehearsal processes are less practiced and continue to change from a single-item repetition style of rehearsal to a more cumulative style as they approach later childhood (e.g., age 10; Lehmann & Hasselhorn, 2012).…”

Section: Distraction In Verbal Short-term Memory: Insights From Develmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Distraction in verbal short-term memory: Insights from developmental differences

Elliott

Hughes

Briganti

et al. 2016

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Distraction In Verbal Short-term Memory: Insights From Develmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Distraction In Verbal Short-term Memory: Insights From Develmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distraction in verbal short-term memory: Insights from developmental differences

Elliott

Hughes

Briganti

et al. 2016

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Tehan et al, 2001); the above analysis suggests that a larger task effect may have been apparent if all trials on both tasks had employed relatively long list lengths. 3 In that regard it is worth noting that our earlier work that failed to find this task difference in children employed a span procedure, rather than the presentation of potentially supra-span lists (Tam et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

"How does processing affect storage in working memory tasks? Evidence for both domain-general and domain-specific effects": Correction to Jarrold et al. (2011).

Jarrold¹,

Tam²,

Baddeley³

et al. 2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms AbstractThree studies are presented that examine why the processing demands within working memory tasks lead to forgetting of the memoranda. In each, separate groups of adult participants were asked to carry out either verbal or nonverbal operations on exactly the same processing materials, while maintaining verbal storage items. The imposition of verbal processing tended to produce greater forgetting, despite the fact that verbal processing operations took no longer to complete than nonverbal processing operations.However, nonverbal processing did cause forgetting, relative to baseline control conditions, and evidence from the timing of individuals' processing responses suggested that individuals in both processing groups slowed their responses in order to 'refresh' the memoranda. Taken together the data suggest that processing has a domain-general effect on working memory performance by impeding refreshment of memoranda, but can also cause effects, which appear domain-specific, either by blocking rehearsal or as a result of interference. In addition, the balance of these effects depends on the structure of the working memory task employed. How does processing 3How does processing affect storage in working memory tasks? Evidence for both domain-general and domain-specific effects Complex span tasks are seen by many to be the 'gold standard' measure of working memory Jarrold & Towse, 2006). In complex span tasks, participants are asked to encode lists of memoranda (which are to be recalled later) while intermittently performing some kind of distracting processing activity (Case, Kurland, & Goldberg, 1982;Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). In general, complex span performance is inferior to that of simple span, which measures immediate recall of memoranda after their presentation in the absence of distracting processing activity (e.g., Duff & Logie, 2001;Hutton & Towse, 2001;La Pointe & Engle, 1990).Consequently, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the presence of the processing activity within a complex span task tends to cause forgetting of memoranda presented during the task.One reason for the substantial research interest in the complex span task is that performance on this measure is typically a strong correlate of measures of intelligence in adults (Bayliss, Jarrold, Gunn, & Baddeley, 2003;Kyllonen & Christal, 1990;Süß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002) and of academic achievement in children (Bayliss et al., 2003; Bull, Epsy, & Wiebe, 2008;Swanson, 2008). Furthermore, many would argue that complex span performance is a significantly stronger correlate of these abilities than is simple span (Conway, Cowan, Bunting, Therriault, & Minkoff, 2002; Engle, Tuholski, Luaghlin, & Conway, 1999; Oberauer, Schulze, Wilhelm, & Süß, 2005), indicating that the forgetting caused by the imposit...

show abstract

“…However, in mainstream cognitive psychology authors who are sympathetic to the Baddeley model continue to interpret reductions in the word length effect or phonological similarity effect as evidence that experimental manipulations have compromised participants' ability to maintain information in verbal short-term memory, whether working with adults (Camos, Mora, & Barroullet, 2013;Lobley, Baddeley, & Gathercole, 2005) or children (Henry, Messer, Luger-Klein, & Crane, 2012;Mora & Camos, 2015;Tam, Jarrold, Baddeley, & Sabatos-DeVito, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting potential markers of storage and rehearsal: Implications for studies of verbal short-term memory and neuropsychological cases

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuropsychological studies of verbal short-term memory have often focused on two signature effects -phonological similarity and word length -the absence of which has been taken to indicate problems in phonological storage and rehearsal respectively. In the present study we present a possible alternative reading of such data, namely that the absence of these effects can follow as a consequence of an individual's poor level of recall. Data from a large normative sample of 251 adult participants were re-analyzed under the assumption that the size of phonological similarity and word length effects are proportional to an individual's overall level of recall. For both manipulations, when proportionalized effects were plotted against memory span, the same function fit the data in both auditory and visual presentation conditions. Furthermore, two additional sets of single-case data were broadly comparable to those that would be expected for an individual's level of verbal short-term memory performance albeit with some variation across tasks. These findings indicate that the absolute magnitude of phonological similarity and word length effects depends on overall levels of recall, and that these effects are necessarily eliminated at low levels of verbal short-term memory performance. This has implications for how one interprets any variation in the size of these effects, and raises serious questions about the causal direction of any relationship between impaired verbal short-term memory and the absence of phonological similarity or word length effects.

show abstract

The development of memory maintenance: Children’s use of phonological rehearsal and attentional refreshment in working memory tasks

Cited by 77 publications

References 79 publications

Distraction in verbal short-term memory: Insights from developmental differences

Distraction in verbal short-term memory: Insights from developmental differences

"How does processing affect storage in working memory tasks? Evidence for both domain-general and domain-specific effects": Correction to Jarrold et al. (2011).

Interpreting potential markers of storage and rehearsal: Implications for studies of verbal short-term memory and neuropsychological cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About