Working Memory Model by Navnita Karmakar

julien26_2 — 2025-06-23 01:33:40 UTC

The strengths of the model are that it clearly defines the processes of memory in a very simple to understand manner. Additionally it does so while being more intricate than the multi-store model, increasing its usefulness.

julien26_2 — 2025-06-23 01:49:05 UTC

The weaknesses are mostly tied to it being an offshoot of the multi-store model. The model focuses mostly structure of memory instead of the process. It also claims that the only way for memory to go from STM to LTM is rehearsal. Another weakness/limitation is that it posits that LTM is one uniform entity. It also doesn't explain how when visual and auditory inputs are related we remember better, and how when they aren't our brains alter what we perceive. Lastly, as this model is more sophisticated, it is harder to test for.

thinh26 — 2025-06-23 01:52:54 UTC

Using articulatory supression (a method which blocks ones inner voice by repeating a sound over and over whilst doing the experimental task) over 5 experiments with participants being 127 20-70 yr old female. Results show that the phonological similarity effect was not stopped by articulatory suppression, whether suppression occurred only at input or at both input and recall.

When articulatory supression was used and participants where asked to either recall written or spoken information of ryhming or non-ryhming words, it was found that ryhming words had been significantly more difficult to recall due to their similar traces, this is called the phonological similarity effect. Though there was no observable difference between written and verbal modes of presentation.

Two conclusions where found: first is that visual imputs cannot be encoded into sound and thus can't enter the phonological store without inner voice. Second is that auditory imputs can enter phonological store but in this situation rehersal would be impossible.

siwan26 — 2025-06-23 01:53:42 UTC

A: To investigate if articulatory suppression would influence the recall of a written list of phonologically dissimilar letters in serial recall (articulatory suppression: having people simultaneously repeat irrelevant words out loud while trying to remember something else)

M: True experiment consisting of 34 undergraduate psychology students using independent samples design, dual-task technique

-7 letters that do not sound similar were chosen, and randomly constructed into 10 different lists

-Participants were divided into two groups: the experimental group & control group

-Experimental group: Participants first saw a list of letters that they had to recall while saying the numbers 1 and 2 at a rate of two numbers per second until they filled the answer sheet

-Control group: Saw the printed list for 5 seconds, wait for another 5 seconds, and were told to write the letters in correct order as accurate as possible, without taking an articulatory suppression task.

-It was repeated 10 times; the trial was scored as correct if the letter were in the correct position

R: The results showed that the scores from the experimental group were much lower with a mean of 45%, than the scores from the control group with a mean of 76%

C: Articulatory suppression prevents rehearsal in the phonological loop due to overload, therefore causing a less accurate working memory recall rate. This study supports the working memory model by showing that phonological loops have limited capacity, and their function to hold auditory information can be disrupted when articulatory rehearsal is prevented, and more than one auditory information are being held.