Working Memory Model

• Baddeley & Hitch (1974):

  • Believed memory is not just one store, but several different stores.
  • If you were given 2 visual tasks then poorer performance.
  • If you were given 1 visual and 1 verbal then no interruption.
  • Focused on STM only and believed it was not a unitary store.
  • They saw LTM as a more passive store that holds previously learned material.
  • Includes ‘slave systems’ to deal with incoming information.
• Working Memory Model:

  Central Executive is seen as the 'Company Boss'.

  
• Central Executive:

  • Limited Capacity – data arrives from the senses but it can’t hold it for long.
  • Determines how slave systems are allocated.
  • Baddeley (1986) uses the metaphor of a company boss to describe how the central executive works.
  • Makes decisions about which issues deserve attention.
  • It can only do a limited number of things at a time.
• Phonological Loop: 1 st Slave system

  • Limited capacity.
  • Deals with auditory information and preserves word order.
  • Baddeley (1986) further subdivided it into:
  • Phonological store: holds the words heard.
  • Articulatory process: Maintenance rehearsal.
• Visuospatial sketch pad: 2nd Slave system

  • Visual and spatial information stored here.
  • Referred to as the Inner Eye.
  • Visual: what things look like:
  • Spatial relationships between things.
  • Limited capacity – 3-4 objects.
  • Modality – visual.
  • Logie (1995) suggested subdivision:
  • Visuo-cache
  • Inner scribe for spatial relations.
• Episodic Buffer:

  • Baddeley (2000) added the episodic buffer as he realised the model needed a more general store.
  • Slave systems deal with specific types of information – this is modality-free.
  • Central executive has no storage capacity.
  • The Buffer is an extra storage system but with a limited capacity of 4 chunks.
  • Integrates information from all other areas.
  • It is fed by the other slave systems.
• WMM: Evaluation: Strength:

  • The WMM explains how dual-task performances work. This is not explored by the MSM.
  • For example, Brain scans (e.g., PET and fMRI scans) show that different parts of the brain are active when performing different types of tasks, supporting the idea of separate systems in working memory, as proposed by the WMM.
  • The model was developed based on lab experiments.
  • Therefore, there are confounding variables.
  • This is because the artificial nature of the lab setting may not reflect real-world memory use accurately. This can affect the ecological validity of the findings.
• WMM: Evaluation: Strength:

  • Patient KF:
  • KF had a brain injury that resulted in damaged verbal short-term memory (STM), but his visual STM remained intact.
  • This suggests that verbal and visual memory are stored in separate components of the working memory system, as proposed by the WMM.
  • This dissociation between the two types of memory supports the idea of multiple memory stores, rather than a single, unitary store as suggested by the Multi-Store Model (MSM).
  • Furthermore, research on patients with brain damage, such as patient EVR, offers further support for the Working Memory Model.
  • EVR had damage to the frontal lobe, which affected his ability to plan and reason (central executive function), but his ability to recall verbal and visual information remained intact.
• WMM: Evaluation: Weakness:

  • Oversimplified: The WMM doesn't fully explain how the memory components interact or how processes like attention affect memory, oversimplifying memory functions.
  • Doesn’t address LTM: The model focuses on short-term memory but ignores how information is transferred to long-term memory or how the two systems interact.
  • Artificial tasks: Studies supporting the WMM often use artificial tasks that don’t reflect real-world memory use, reducing the model’s ecological validity.