The Working Memory Model

• The working memory model was based off of Baddely and Hitch 1974
• The Slave System:

  • Phonological Loop
  • Episodic Buffer
  • Visuo-spatial sketchpad
• Visuo-spatial sketchpad:

  1. Visual Cache
  2. Inner Scribe
• Visio-Spatial Sketchpad - Stores visual and spatial information when required. The capacity is limited to 3–4 objects
• The visual cache stores visual data (Logie 1995)
• Episodic Buffer:

  The storage component of the central exec. A temporary store for info, integrating the visual, spatial and verbal info processes by the other stores and maintains a sense of time sequence
• The inner scribe - Records the arrangement of objects in visual field and transfers information to the visual cache
• Episodic Buffer:

  Links Working emory to long term memory and wider cognitive processes such as perception
• The central executive:

  • has limited processing capacity
  • The ‘boss’ of working memory as it decides how to process incoming info by allocating relevant slave systems to tasks
  • monitors incoming data
• Phonological Loop:

  It processes auditory info (acoustic coding) and preserves the order in which the info arrives.
• Phonological Loop:

  • Articulatory control system
  • Phonological Store
• Articulatory control system:

  Allows for maintenance rehearsal (capacity is 2 seconds of what you say) - keeps information in the Pl through sub-vocalised repetition
• Phonological store:

  Stores the words that you hear
• Baddely and Hitch questioned the existence of a single STM store - So it doesn’t concern LTM
• Baddely and HItch argued that the STM was more complex than just transferring information to the LTM and that the STM is an ‘Active Store’.
• The Central Executive aka the CEO/Boss
• The Central Executive manages attention and controls information from the slave systems
• Phonological store = inner ear
• Articulatory process = inner voice
• The Visuo-spatial sketchpad = the inner eye
• The Visuo-spatial Sketchpad - helps people to navigate and interact with the physical environment
• PEEL Paragraphs:

  1. Strength - Patient KF brain damage
  2. Strength - Baddely study of Dual-task performance
  3. Limitation - Patient KF may have had other cognitive impairments
  4. Limitation - Lack of clarity over the CE
• Shallice and Warrington (1974)

  • Aim: To investigate a patient KF who had suffered brain damage in a motorcycle accident.
  • Method: A case study using numerous psychometric tests, experiments and observations.
• Shallice and Warrington (1974) - Results 

  • KF’s short term memory problems were much greater for auditory information than visual, suggesting his brain damage was restricted to the phonological loop.
• Shallice and Warrington (1974) - Conclusion

  • The case of KF supports both the MSM and the WMM as his LTM was unaffected by his injury, suggesting LTM and STM are different stores. 
  • His case supports the WMM as his visuospatial sketchpad seems unaffected by his injury, suggesting that resides in a different area of the brain to the phonological loop which was damaged.
• PEEL Paragraph 1:

  One strength of the Working memory model is that it has supporting studies. For example Shallice and Warrington 1974 did a case study with patient KF who suffered brain damage from a motorcycle accident. This is a strength because patient KF was able to process visual info normally but had poor STM ability for auditory information. Therefore supports the existence of separate stores within the STM
• PEEL Paragraphs 2:

  One weakness of the working memory model is that Patient KF may have had other cognitive impairments. For example trauma from the accident may have effects their cognitive performance. Therefore challenges the support from clinical studies of people with brain damage.
• PEEL Paragraph 3:

  Weakness - lack of clarity over CE - Baddely (2003) CE is most important but least understood as needs to be more specific than just attention
• PEEL Paragraph 4:

  Strength - studies of dual task performance support separate existence of the VSS. Baddely 1975 carried out a visual/verbal task at the same time and performance was similar however when both were visual or verbal performance declined. This supports the idea for separate systems