Langston PSY 4040 Cognitive Psychology Notes 4 What do these have in common You can still remember details of your tenth birthday party which you don t need but you have trouble remembering a definition long enough to write it down ID: 919756
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Short Term/Working Memory" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Short Term/Working Memory
Langston, PSY 4040
Cognitive Psychology
Notes 4
Slide2What do these have in common?You can still remember details of your tenth birthday party (which you don
’
t need), but you have trouble remembering a definition long enough to write it down.
Pizza I: You look up the number of a pizza delivery place and someone asks you a question before you can make the call. When you go to dial, the number is gone.
You
’
re trying to get the lunch order straight. Three people tell you what they don
’
t want on their hamburger but you can only remember part of the information.
Pizza II. Why can
’
t you remember a number and talk to someone, but you can remember a number while you look around the room?
Slide3What do these have in common?Short-term memory.
Two kinds of memory, short and long.
The duration is short.
The capacity is small.
There are different resources available for different tasks.
Slide4ArchitectureRecall our box model:
Sensory
Store
LTM
STM
Filter
Pattern
Recognition
Selection
Input
(Environment)
Response
Slide5Short-Term MemoryA brief memory store with a limited capacity that helps you to hold information as you process it.
Slide6Two Kinds of MemoryThe phenomenological evidence is very strong. Everyone has experienced the phenomenon of having some memories that don’
t last long and some that do. What is the evidence for two kinds of memory store?
Slide7Two Kinds of MemoryEvidence:The serial position curve.
The task: I present you with a list and you recall it. You can recall the words in any order and try to recall as many as you can (called a free recall task).
We graph the frequency of recall by serial position in the list (first word, second word, etc.).
Looking at that curve can tell us something about memory stores.
Slide8Two Kinds of MemoryHere are classic serial position curves (Deese & Kaufman, 1957):
Deese & Kaufman (1957, p. 182)
10 item list
32 item list
Slide9Two Kinds of MemoryIt also works for the position in a passage from the World Almanac (Deese & Kaufman, 1957):
Deese & Kaufman (1957, p. 182)
Passages
Slide10Two Kinds of MemoryThere are two parts to the curve. The first part is called primacy (it’s the earlier words) and the last part is called recency (it
’
s the most recent words).
Slide11Two Kinds of MemoryOur curves again (Deese & Kaufman, 1957):
Deese & Kaufman (1957, p. 182)
Primacy
Slide12Two Kinds of MemoryOur curves again (Deese & Kaufman, 1957):
Deese & Kaufman (1957, p. 182)
Recency
Slide13Two Kinds of MemoryPeople start by writing down the last words they heard. Recency is high because people just dump out the contents of STM.
Slide14Two Kinds of MemoryYou can see that here in the order of recall(Deese & Kaufman, 1957):
Deese & Kaufman (1957, p. 182)
Last part recalled first
Slide15Two Kinds of MemoryWhen people go back to words they have to try to remember, they produce the recalls that will go into the primacy part. This part is coming from LTM.
Slide16Two Kinds of MemoryTry the free recall demonstration here…
Slide17Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz (1966):
Even though it looks like one curve, it actually reflects two kinds of memory.
Slide18Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can test this by thinking of variables that should affect each kind of memory differently.
What should affect
recency
(STM) but not
primacy
(LTM)?Whether or not people can recall right away. If STM doesn’t last long then having to wait will allow it to go away and there won’t be anything for recency. Since you wait for primacy anyway, it won’t matter.G&C: Make people count backwards before they get to recall.
Slide19Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can see the effect of counting backwards:
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 358)
No counting, standard serial position effect.
Slide20Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can see the effect of counting backwards:
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 358)
10 seconds of counting, recency way down.
Slide21Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can see the effect of counting backwards:
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 358)
30 seconds of counting, recency gone.
Slide22Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can see the effect of counting backwards:
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 358)
Note: You still get primacy no matter the delay.
Slide23Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can test the two store explanation of the curve by thinking of variables that should affect each kind of memory differently.
What should affect
primacy
(LTM) but not
recency
(STM)?How much time people have between each item. With more time, there’s more time to rehearse, and more stuff should get into LTM. Since recency isn’t based on how much you rehearse, it shouldn’t be affected. G&C: Space out the words in the list.
Slide24Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can see the effect of spacing:
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)
3 seconds, low primacy
Slide25Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can see the effect of spacing:
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)
6 seconds, medium primacy
Slide26Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can see the effect of spacing:
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)
9 seconds, higher primacy
Slide27Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can see the effect of spacing:
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)
Note: You still get recency, and they
’
re all about the same.
Slide28Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can test the two store explanation of the curve by thinking of variables that should affect each kind of memory differently.
What else should affect
primacy
(LTM) but not
recency
(STM)?How many times people see each item. With more presentations, there’s more time to rehearse, and more stuff should get into LTM. Since recency isn’t based on how much you rehearse, it shouldn’t be affected. G&C: Present the words more than once.
Slide29Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can see the effect of presentations:
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)
Once, lower primacy
Slide30Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can see the effect of presentations:
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)
Twice or three times, higher primacy
Slide31Two Kinds of MemoryGlanzer and Cunitz cont’d.:
We can see the effect of presentations:
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966, p. 354)
Note: Recency not affected here either.
Slide32Two Kinds of MemoryResearch like Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) also represents an important tool in cognitive psychology called the double dissociation.
The basic idea is that if different parts of a task use different processes, then different variables will affect those parts differently.
Slide33Two Kinds of MemoryThis makes it more clear:
Primacy (LTM)
Recency (STM)
Two parts of the curve (two kinds of memory):
Slide34Two Kinds of Memory
Primacy (LTM)
Recency (STM)
Spacing
Counting Backwards
Two task parameters:
Slide35Two Kinds of MemoryThis makes it more clear:
Primacy (LTM)
Recency (STM)
Spacing
Affected
Not Affected
Counting Backwards
Expected patterns (in
green
):
Slide36Two Kinds of MemoryThis makes it more clear:
Primacy (LTM)
Recency (STM)
Spacing
Counting Backwards
Not Affected
Affected
Expected patterns (in
green
):
Slide37Two Kinds of MemoryThis makes it more clear:
Primacy (LTM)
Recency (STM)
Spacing
Affected
Not Affected
Counting Backwards
Not Affected
Affected
Since the patterns are different, it suggests the two kinds of memory are independent.
Slide38Two Kinds of MemoryAlso neuropsychological evidence:HM: Damage to hippocampus when having corpus collosum severed. Could remember old stuff, but could not acquire new memories. Appeared to have STM deficit and transfer deficit (anterograde amnesia).
Also people with retrograde amnesia who can learn new things but forget parts of their past.
Suggests another type of double dissociation.
Slide39ConnectionWe can address our first question:You can still remember details of your tenth birthday party (which you don
’
t need), but you have trouble remembering a definition long enough to write it down.
Why?
Slide40Properties of STMNow that we have decided that STM and LTM are separate, what are the properties of STM?
Duration.
Capacity.
Mechanism of forgetting.
Representation (code).
Search.
Slide41Properties of STMDuration:Peterson and Peterson (1959) had people learn a list of three letters, count backwards, and recall it.
The counting could go from 0 to 18 seconds.
What they found was that after 18 seconds, STM recall was virtually zero.
This was the inspiration for Glanzer and Cunitz
’
s (1966) counting backwards task.
Look at the data graph…
Slide42Properties of STMDuration:
Peterson & Peterson (1959, p. 195)
Slide43ConnectionDuration:We can answer Pizza I:
Pizza I: You look up the number of a pizza delivery place and someone asks you a question before you can make the call. When you go to dial, the number is gone.
Why?
Slide44Properties of STMCapacity:Measured using span tasks.
I present you a list of information (e.g., s, r, d, g, n, v, p), and you repeat it back.
We make the lists longer until you can
’
t do it.
Slide45Properties of STMCapacity:Miller (1956) noted that over a variety of span tasks (letters, digits, words, binary numbers…) people came out with a capacity of 7 plus or minus 2. That
’
s the capacity (since the task is clearly using STM).
Slide46Properties of STM
Miller (1990, p. 349; from Hayes, 1952)
Slide47Properties of STMCapacity:As Miller (1990) puts it:
“
Absolute judgment is limited by the amount of information. Immediate memory is limited by the number of items.
”
(p. 349)
We did a span task in CogLab, we can look at the results…
Slide48Properties of STMCapacity:Note that a process called chunking messes up our measure of span.
A chunk is an integrated unit of information. You could remember seven digits, or you could call it
“
my phone number
”
and then it
’
s just one thing.
The capacity is really 7 plus or minus 2 chunks.
Slide49Properties of STMCapacity:Consider this from Miller (1990):
Miller (1990, p. 350)
Slide50Properties of STMCapacity:Chunking is like
“
putting it in your own words.
”
We recode our experience into verbal descriptions all the time.
Slide51Properties of STMCapacity:To the extent that you have LTM knowledge to use to make chunks, you can have an incredible span.
Chase and Simon (1973) found that chess masters could remember more than 7 plus or minus 2 pieces on a board. But, they only did about 8 chunks. They had 10,000 to 100,000 chunks memorized.
When the board was arranged at random, they weren
’
t nearly as good.
Learning curves for master, class A player, and beginner…
Slide52Properties of STM
Chase & Simon (1973, p. 61)
Slide53Properties of STMCapacity:Let
’
s do a chunking example:
Remember:
A A M L J Y K V C D S F R T E
Slide54Properties of STMCapacity:Let
’
s do a chunking example:
Recall:
Slide55Properties of STMCapacity:Now try:
A A M L J Y K V C D S F R T E
Slide56Properties of STMCapacity:Recall:
Slide57Properties of STMCapacity:Now try:
YMCA JFK TV LSD ERA
Slide58Properties of STMCapacity:Recall:
You can go way beyond your
“
capacity
”
with chunking.
Slide59ConnectionCapacity:We can answer our third question:
You
’
re trying to get the lunch order straight. Three people tell you what they don
’
t want on their hamburger but you can only remember part of the information.
Why?
How could you do better?
Slide60Properties of STMMechanism of forgetting:Decay: The passage of time causes it to fade out. (Analogous to rusting.) But, there
’
s a mechanism for rusting, shouldn
’
t there be a mechanism for forgetting?
Interference: New stuff coming in makes it hard to keep what you have.
Slide61Properties of STMMechanism of forgetting (Break for SI)
:
Waugh and Norman (1965) manipulated two things:
Rate: How fast the material was presented.
Number of intervening items: How much material came between the critical item and the chance to recall.
Slide62Properties of STMMechanism of forgetting:Try the Waugh and Norman (1965) demonstration…
Slide63Properties of STMMechanism of forgetting (Break for SI)
:
Waugh and Norman (1965) manipulated two things:
Rate: How fast the material was presented.
Number of intervening items: How much material came between the critical item and the chance to recall.
Comparing decay and forgetting:
If it
’
s decay, more time equals more loss. So, slower vs. faster should have a big effect.If it’s interference, more material equals more loss, so amount should be the big variable.
Slide64Properties of STMMechanism of forgetting:
If it
’
s decay, rate should matter more. The results might look like this:
Slide65Properties of STMMechanism of forgetting:
If it
’
s interference, number of items should matter more. The results might look like this:
Slide66Properties of STMMechanism of forgetting:
If it
’
s both, then both variables matter. The results might look like this:
Slide67Properties of STMMechanism of forgetting (Break for SI)
:
Waugh and Norman (1965) manipulated two things:
Rate: How fast the material was presented.
Number of intervening items: How much material came between the critical item and the chance to recall.
Comparing decay and forgetting:
If it
’
s decay, more time equals more loss. So, slower vs. faster should have a big effect.If it’s interference, more material equals more loss, so amount should be the big variable.They found that number of interfering items was the important variable.
Slide68Properties of STMWinner?
Waugh & Norman (1965, p. 91)
Slide69Discussion
Waugh & Norman (1965): Collapsed data. “…it is clear that the effect of rate is relatively small compared to the effect of serial position” (p. 91).
Waugh & Norman (1965, p. 91)
Slide70Discussion
Waugh & Norman (1965): Individual data. Note how much
more distance is
affecting the results.
Waugh & Norman (1965, p. 91)
Slide71Properties of STMMechanism of forgetting:Interference. Two kinds:
Retroactive: What we
’
ve been discussing. Trying to put in new stuff messes up existing stuff.
Proactive: All of the old stuff you know is making it hard to fit in new stuff.
Learning a new language is an example of this. Trying to learn by working through your old language makes it very difficult. Your existing language interferes.
We can try a proactive interference demonstration…
Slide72Properties of STMMechanism of forgetting:Some important points about proactive interference.
It makes it hard to learn too much of the same type of stuff at the same time. This has implications for cramming.
Release from PI shows the benefit of mixing up the materials that you
’
re studying.
Keppel and Underwood (1962) showed that Peterson and Peterson
’
s (1959) results were mostly proactive interference. If people learn just one list, count, and recall, you don
’t get the forgetting. (Note that it is still interference.)
Slide73Properties of STMCode:What is the format of the information?
Conrad (1964) had lists of letters that were auditorially confusable (BCPTV and FMNSX). People
’
s memory confusions with these lists showed that the letters were much more likely to be confused based on sound than on appearance.
Wickelgren (1965) would present span tasks like
“
4NF9G27Z.
”
When people recalled, their mistakes were based on sound.So, auditory code.
Slide74Properties of STMCode:Posner and Keele (1967) presented pairs of letters like A-a or A-A. Participants made a same-different judgment.
If the letters were less than 1.5 seconds apart, the appearance mattered (A-A was easier than A-a).
After 1.5 seconds, appearance didn
’
t matter.
So, it looks like an early visual code is recoded into an auditory code within 1.5 seconds.
Slide75Properties of STMCode:Note that since you get release from PI in a STM task, and release from PI is a semantic task (based on meaning), there must be some representation of semantic information in STM as well.
Slide76Properties of STMSearch:We
’
ve been treating STM as a static storage place. We know it doesn
’
t last long, it doesn
’
t hold much, and interference is what causes forgetting. We also know it has a variety of information formats.
Now let
’s think about processing. If you have something in STM and you are asked a question about it, how do you search for it?
Slide77Properties of STMSearch:Search of STM was the topic for Sternberg (1972).
The task was simple:
Present a span list of 1-7 items (e.g., 3, 2, 6, 9, 5, 7).
Present a test digit (e.g., 2).
Participant says whether or not the test digit was on the list.
Slide78Properties of STMSearch:Sternberg did two things:
Improved reaction time methodology by developing something called the
“
additive factors method.
”
Learned about short term memory search.
We will digress for a moment to look at the additive factors method to help us interpret Sternberg
’
s results.
Slide79Properties of STMSearch:The original method was
Donders
’ subtractive method.
If there are different stages, find tasks that have different ones of those stages and subtract them.
Slide80Properties of STMSearch:For example, a task that requires you to respond when a light comes on (A reaction) differs from a task that requires you to respond to one light and do nothing if it’s a different light (C reaction; go no-go) by at least an identification stage. Subtracting tells you about the stage that differs.
Detect
Respond
Detect
Respond
Identify
(A reaction)
(C reaction)
(minus)
Identify(equals)
Slide81Properties of STMSearch:The problem is that the differences in reaction times didn’t work out as predicted because it’s hard to find tasks that differ by only one stage. For example, the B reaction (one response to one light, a different response to a different light) is supposed to add a response selection stage that’s not part of the C reaction:
Detect
Respond
Identify
(C reaction)
Detect
Respond
Identify
(B reaction)
Select
Slide82Properties of STMSearch:But, isn’t deciding whether or not to respond a selection? In other words, isn’t most of a selection stage embedded in the C reaction? So, how does subtracting separate the stages? What task might actually differ by these stages?
Detect
Respond
Identify
(C reaction)
Detect
Respond
Identify
(B reaction)
SelectSelect
Slide83Properties of STMSearch:The additive factors method is to manipulate variables that affect different stages and look at how that affects time.
You can tell if stages are independent and what goes on inside the stages.
Slide84Properties of STMSearch:Sternberg broke search up into four stages (starting after the test digit is presented):
Encode
Decide
Search
Respond
Slide85Properties of STMSearch:If you manipulate a variable that should only affect one stage, that stage should change and the others won’t (if they’re independent). You’re adding time, which means the tasks don’t have to differ by a single stage, you just need tasks to affect each stage independently.
Slide86Properties of STMSearch:For example, making it harder to see the test digit should affect encoding, but not the other stages:
Encode
Decide
Search
Respond
4
4
vs.
Slide87Properties of STMSearch:Different stages should be influenced by different variables:
Encoding: Intact vs. degraded stimulus.
Search: How many items are in the memory set.
Decision: Yes or no answers.
Response: Probability of a particular response.
Slide88Properties of STMSearch: We will be considering the search stage. How do people search STM?
Search in parallel: Search all items at once.
Serial search, self-terminating: Search items one at a time, stop when you find it.
Serial search, exhaustive: Search items one at a time, search them all regardless of where the item is in the list.
Let
’
s consider each in turn…
Slide89Properties of STMParallel search:
Slide90Properties of STMSerial search, self-terminating:
Slide91Properties of STMSerial search, exhaustive:
Slide92Properties of STMSternberg found that the search was serial and exhaustive. It seems counterintuitive, but it makes sense if the search is an automatic process.
The function: RT = 38n + 397 (ms)
What do we know from that?
Each comparison takes 38 ms.
Stages 1, 3, and 4 take 397 ms together.
Let
’
s check our CogLab result…
Slide93Properties of STMYou could also look at other stages using the same technique.
Slide94Working MemoryLet’s make a transition. We now have the properties of short term memory, but we
’
ve been looking at it as a static storage device. What if we thought about its dual role as a storage device and a place where information is manipulated and transformed? That
’
s working memory.
Slide95Working MemoryVarious attempts to define it…“
Working memory can be defined as a flexible, capacity limited, mental workspace used to store and process information in the service of ongoing cognition
”
(Morrison & Chein, 2011, p. 47).
“
Working memory (WM) enables the active maintenance of information in a readily accessible state
”
(Fukuda, Vogel, Mayr, & Awh, 2010, p. 673).
Slide96Working MemoryVarious attempts to define it…“
the cognitive system responsible for maintaining information or task goals in an active state over brief periods of time
”
(McCabe, 2010, p. 868).
Slide97Working MemoryThe appeal of working memory is that its capacity is associated with a number of important variables:
“
reading comprehension (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Turley-Ames & Whitfield, 2003), episodic memory (McCabe & Smith, 2002; Oberauer, 2005; Park et al., 2002), executive function (Miyake, Friedman, Rettinger, Shah, & Hegarty, 2001), and general fluid intelligence (Engle et al., 1999; Kyllonen & Christal, 1990)
”
(McCabe, 2010, p. 868).
Slide98Working MemoryOne big change when we think about working memory is in how we measure capacity. We need a task that involves both memory and processing.
Reading span: Read a set of sentences, hold the last word of each sentence in memory. After the set, recall. Start with sets of two, then three… The average span is low compared to the regular span tasks (2-5.5).
Operation span: Another way of getting at span. See the CogLab results…
Slide99Working MemoryChanging to working memory also has implications for the structure of the STM box (Baddeley, 1985):
Visuo-spatial
sketchpad
Articulatory loop
Central executive
Slide100Working MemoryCentral executive: Kind of the controller for the system, scheduling tasks, allocating resources, monitoring performance.
Generate 100 random letters at one letter per second. It should be tough because the executive must monitor the output (which is automatic, but not favorable to randomness) and the executive must intervene to make those random, plus remember what was recently produced. At a slower rate, this isn
’
t so tough.
Slide101Working MemoryCentral executive: Evidence:The evidence comes from neuropsychology patients with frontal lobe damage who have difficulties with executive function.
Slide102Working MemoryArticulatory loop: A system for storing verbal information temporarily.
Traditional memory span tests could be seen as operating here. A lot of what we
’
ve
said so far about STM could apply to the loop.
One observation of the loop is that it seems to have a trace decay forgetting function. The duration it takes to say words is more important than the length of the words in determining forgetting (hence Welsh digit spans).
Slide103Working MemoryArticulatory loop: Evidence:Conrad showed that letters that were auditorially more confusable (D, C, E) were harder to remember than lists of letters that were visually confusable, but not auditorially similar (B, K, R). (Connect to pattern recognition.)
Articulatory suppression (saying
“
the,
”
the,
”
the,
”…) makes verbal tasks harder.Duration of materials affects performance.
Slide104Working MemoryVisuo-spatial sketchpad: A system for holding image-type information.
People show similar limits on holding visuo-spatial information as they show for lists.
A lab task similar to trying to count the number of windows in the house or apartment where you live interferes with image memory tasks.
Slide105Working MemoryVisuo-spatial sketchpad: Evidence:Scanning time for images is similar to scanning time in the real world.
Picture a rabbit by an elephant. Zoom in on the rabbit
’
s eyelash.
Picture a rabbit by a fly. Zoom in on the rabbit
’
s eyelash.
Mentally rotating objects takes longer the farther they have to rotate.
It takes longer to imagine walking home carrying a cannonball than a balloon.We’ll see more of this in the imagery unit.
Slide106Working MemoryHow do we know the different systems are independent? Another double dissociation.Participants are in a dual task paradigm:
Primary: Either a verbal memory task or a visual memory task.
Secondary: Either articulatory suppression or tapping.
Work out the double dissociation on the slides below…
Slide107Working Memory
Slide108Working Memory
Verbal Memory Task
Visual Memory Task
Articulatory Suppression
Finger Tapping
Slide109Working Memory
Verbal Memory Task
Visual Memory Task
Articulatory Suppression
Hard
Easy
Finger Tapping
Easy
Hard
Slide110Working MemoryA pattern like that in the table would suggest that the capacities are independent.We could do something similar with the executive. Generating a string of random letters should interfere with decision-making tasks, we could probably work out double-dissociations.
Slide111ConnectionWe can address our final question:Pizza II. Why can’
t you remember a number and talk to someone, but you can remember a number while you look around the room?
Why?
Slide112Working Memory Applications Ashcraft and Krause (2007)Working memory is essential for math performance.Problem-size effect: Larger operands are more difficult to work with (9 x 6 vs. 4 x 5). Smaller ones more frequent in practice, more retrieval-based (automatic). Larger ones strategy (therefore working memory) driven.
Slide113Working Memory Applications Ashcraft and Krause (2007)Problem-size effect:Example: Larger minuends take longer, more errors, more strategy driven.
Slide114Working Memory Applications
Ashcraft & Krause (2007, p. 244)
Slide115Working Memory Applications Ashcraft and Krause (2007)Problem-size effect:People with low capacities or given working memory loads more strongly affected.
Slide116Working Memory Applications Ashcraft and Krause (2007)Working memory is essential for math performance.The number of steps in a problem
’
s solution is affected by working memory.
Carry problems significantly harder.
Slide117Working Memory Applications
Ashcraft & Kirk (2001, p. 230)
Slide118Working Memory Applications Ashcraft and Krause (2007)How does math anxiety affect math performance?Higher math anxiety goes with lower math learning and motivation (overall
r
= -.31).
Slide119Working Memory Applications Ashcraft and Krause (2007)How does math anxiety affect math performance?Anxiety is associated with decreases on more advanced math.
Slide120Working Memory Applications
Ashcraft & Krause (2007, p. 245)
Slide121Working Memory Applications Ashcraft and Krause (2007)How does math anxiety affect math performance?The value of psychology: After cognitive behavioral interventions to reduce anxiety, math scores reach the normal range. This is with NO new instruction in math.
Slide122Working Memory Applications Ashcraft and Krause (2007)How does math anxiety affect working memory?Capacity is compromised when the task activates anxiety.
Slide123Working Memory Applications Ashcraft and Krause (2007)How does math anxiety affect working memory?2-letter load:
Ashcraft & Krause (2007, p. 246)
Slide124Working Memory Applications Ashcraft and Krause (2007)How does math anxiety affect working memory?6-letter load:
Ashcraft & Krause (2007, p. 246)
Slide125Working Memory Applications Ashcraft and Krause (2007)Education:Not a lot of research on working memory and math.
Math-anxious individuals will be more strongly impacted the farther they go.
Anxiety leads to avoidance, closing off options.
Teachers play a role in developing anxiety and its maintenance.
Slide126Working Memory Applications Ashcraft and Krause (2007)Education:Attitudes (like you
’
re either good or bad at math regardless of work) support anxiety.
College majors with the highest levels of math anxiety: Future elementary school teachers.
Slide127Working Memory Applications Where else might working memory capacity be an important predictor of performance?
Slide128Working Memory Applications Does working memory training work? (Melby-Lervag, Redick, & Hulme
, 2016)
This is really three questions:
Near transfer: Does it improve performance on the same or really similar tasks?
Intermediate transfer: Changes in overall working memory capacities
Far transfer: What we really want; changes in the abilities affected by working memory
Slide129Working Memory Applications Does working memory training work? (Melby-Lervag, Redick, & Hulme
, 2016)
The results are from a meta-analysis:
Get a lot of studies.
Measure the effect in each.
Combine those effects into an overall analysis.
Slide130Working Memory Applications Does working memory training work? (Melby-Lervag, Redick, & Hulme
, 2016)
The results are from a meta-analysis:
On the one hand, meta-analysis is a kind of “gold standard.” You’re reviewing lots of results and averaging out meaningless differences to get a better estimate.
But, know that there are reasonable disagreements about every part of this process.
Slide131Working Memory Applications Does working memory training work? (Melby-Lervag, Redick, & Hulme
, 2016)
This really three questions:
Near transfer: Yes
Intermediate transfer: Somewhat
Far transfer: No
Slide132Working Memory Applications
(
Melby-Lervag
, Redick, &
Hulme
, 2016, p. 520)
Slide133Working Memory Applications A modified architecture (Vandierendonck, 2016):There has been a lot of discussion about how to characterize the central executive.
A lot of it comes down to a homunculus: If the executive “decides” something, who in
the executive’s
brain does the deciding, etc. (turtles all the way down).
Slide134Working Memory Applications (Vandierendonck, 2016
, p.
82)
Slide135End of Short Term/Working Memory Show