Working memory model evaluation

• STRENGTH

  • clinical evidence, case of KF
  • support through Shallice and Warrington, they noticed KF had experienced a serious motor cycle accident which cause severe damage to STM
  • closer inspection showed his visual was fine but verbal was damaged
  • shows a subdivision of STM
• STRENGTH

  • supporting evidence from Robbins et al, 1996
  • shown through dual task study, ppts played chess whilst either saying see saw or pressing keys in a clockwise fashion
  • results showed that performance was best when saying see-saw
  • supports each store exists and has limited capacituy
• LIMITATION

  • lacks ecological validity
  • supported through evidence that there is a need for high control of eliminate EVs
  • in doing so, tasks are artificial and don't accurately represent everyday dual tasks
  • limited generalisability and low external validity
• LIMITATION

  • lots of criticism on the nature of the CE
  • Parkin argues that it's not very well defined to the point of being unfalsifiable, and many believe the CE is subdivided too
  • questions the validity of the model