Working memory model evaluation

Cards (4)

  • 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