Evidence of the WMM + Evaluation

• logic et al. (1989)- supports WMM as a model:

  • aim: examine the role of working memory in performance on a complex computer game.
  • method: p's played a game using a joystick. they also had to process verbal info as part of the game. at the same time, a distractor task was used (either visuospatial or verbal).
  • findings: p's could easily play the game and the verbal reasoning task at the same time. supports the idea that two slave systems can dual task if using diff elements of the WMM.
• logic et al. (1989)- supports the limited capacity of both slave systems:

  • when given a visual distractor task, p's struggled to complete the verbal reasoning task (showed articulatory supression).
  • provides support for the limited capacity of both slave systems as the p's couldn't complete both tasks in each slave system.
• the case of KF:

  • in the 1970's, KF was in a motorcycle accident, resulting in brain damage to his left occipital lobe.
  • STM was damaged, but LTM was normal.
  • remembered words better if presented visually as opposed to auditorally.
  • this suggests that only the phonological loop was damaged in the WM. evidence that WM has more than one part.
• strengths of the WMM:

  • supporting evidence from dual-tasks studies, e.g. baddeley & hitch and logic et al.
  • clinical evidence from case studies, KF- separate components for visual & auditory.
  • brain imaging evidence- PET and fMRI scans have shown different brain regions are active during visual & verbal tasks, supporting the idea of separate systems.
  • more detailed than MSM, STM is active, not just a passive store.
• weaknesses of the WMM:

  • lack of clarity about the central executive (vague, difficult to to test) and episodic buffer.
  • only focuses on STM- doesn't explain how info is transferred to LTM.
  • individual differences not accounted for- doesn't explain why some people have better working memory capacity than others.
  • oversimplified- doesn't fully explain the interaction between components of working memory.
  • limited explanation of the capacity of components.
• evaluation of research methods:

  case studies- KF

  • strength: provides in-depth detailed info. supports the separate components of the model.
  • weakness: lack of pop. validity (p' variables), may not be generalisable to everyone, e.g. KF- trauma, not just brain damage.

  lab exp- logic et al.

  • strength: high control over extraneous variables- reliable & replicable, makes cause & effect relationships much clearer.
  • weakness: lack ecological validity, artificial tasks.
• more evaluation of research methods:

  brain scans- PET/MRI

  • strength: scientific, objective methods, provide biological evidence for separate components.
  • weakness: expensive, not always practical for memory tasks, brain activity doesn't always explain how memory works, just when it's happening.

  experimental designs (independent group/repeated measures)-

  • strength: helps test diff types of memory tasks at the same time (dual-task).
  • weakness: demand characteristics might affect performance in memory tasks, esp repeated measures design (order effects).