WMM
Cards (4)
- strength: dual task performance studies Baddeley et al 1975point: research evidence from dual task performance studies support the WMMevidence: baddeley et al 1975 found that participents could perform a visual and verbal task together without any interference, however when 2 visual tasks were done together performance in those tasks declinedexplanation: this shows that the WMM for STM has separate subsystems work independently when processing information for STM(visuospatial sketchpad for visual and phonological loop for verbal) this strengthens the models validity.
- strength: KF shallice and warrington 1970point: KF supports the WMMevidence: KF has amnesia which affected his memory, with digits and being read out to him he couldn't comprehend it ( phonological loop damaged) but when he read the digits and words himself he could process the information and recall them ( visuospatial sketchpad was working)explanation: this shows that the STM does have seperate slave subsystems when processing information further strengthening the WMM
- competing argument: KF is not generalisablepoint: using brain damage patients in research raises issuesevidence: Brain damage can vary widely and individual cases like KF may provide insights but doesn't apply to health brains so the findings of KF are difficult to replicateexplanation: this limits the generalisability of the WMM conclusions as the model reliance on case studies might not reflect accurately on typical cognitive processes
- weakness: episodic buffer is not fully explained Baddeley 2000point: episodic buffer is not fully explained as its relatively newevidence: baddeley 2000 added it later to explain how information from different slave subsystems are intergrated and transferred to LTM but the episodic buffer is vague itselfexplanation: this lack of clarity about how the episodic buffer works weakens the WMM as it creates gaps in out understanding of the WMM and raises questions on how the WMM is actually an incomplete explanation of STM theory.