Central and peripheral components of working memory storage.

Cowan, Nelson; Saults, J. Scott; Blume, Christopher L.

doi:10.1037/a0036814

Cited by 148 publications

(202 citation statements)

References 147 publications

(377 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

190

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with this view, other research shows that, when memorizing visual information on top of verbal information (or vice versa), memorizing additional items from another modality only leads to a small decrease in memory performance compared to when only the items from the first modality have to be remembered (e.g., Cowan & Morey, 2007;Cowan, Saults, & Blume, 2014), though these studies also show that memory uses some central, amodal components as well. However, it should be noted that these experiments used stimuli from a limited set of items, and it is unclear how interference in different modalities interacts with each other.…”

Section: Chunkingmentioning

confidence: 54%

Interference and memory capacity limitations.

Endress

Szabó

2017

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. However, the origins of these capacity limitations are debated, and generally attributed to active, attentional processes. Here, we show that the existence of interference among items in memory mathematically guarantees fixed and limited capacity limits under very general conditions, irrespective of any processing assumptions. Assuming that interference (i) increases with the number of interfering items and (ii) brings memory performance to chance levels for large numbers of interfering items, capacity limits are a simple function of the relative influence of memorization and interference. In contrast, we show that time-based memory limitations do not lead to fixed memory capacity limitations that are independent of the timing properties of an experiment. We show that interference can mimic both slot-like and continuous resource-like memory limitations, suggesting that these types of memory performance might not be as different as commonly believed. We speculate that slot-like WM limitations might arise from crowding-like phenomena in memory when participants have to retrieve items. Further, based on earlier research on parallel attention and enumeration, we suggest that crowding-like phenomena might be a common reason for the three major cognitive capacity limitations. As suggested by Miller (1956) and Cowan (2001), these capacity limitations might thus arise due to a common reason, even though they likely rely on distinct processes. Permanent repository link:

show abstract

Section: Chunkingmentioning

confidence: 54%

Interference and memory capacity limitations.

Endress

Szabó

2017

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that this view has recently been modified based on newer experiments. Cowan et al (2014) now suggest that B[…] the notion of the focus of attention as a central holding area is too simplistic to account for a wide range of experimental results involving the combination of verbal and visual stimuli^(p.25) and outline a working memory model made up of both specialized verbal and visual working memory resources (Bperipheral resources^in their terminology), as well as attentional resources (Bcentral resources^in their terminology).…”

Section: The Complementary Relationship Between Baddeley's Model and mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Multicomponent Working Memory Model, Attention, and Long-term Memory in Multimedia Learning: A Comment on Schweppe and Rummer (2014)

Soemer

2015

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multimedia learning theories rely on findings from different areas of fundamental psychological research. Working memory is undoubtedly a particularly important concept for these theories. However, the application of findings from fundamental research to multimedia learning is not as straightforward as it might seem at first glance, and misinterpretations are pervasive in the literature.The recent article of Schweppe and Rummer (2014) represents an important contribution in this respect. Their paper outlines assumptions in Baddeley and Hitch's (1974) multicomponent working model and discusses the implementation of these assumptions in popular multimedia learning theories such as the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML; Mayer 2009) and cognitive load theory (CLT; Sweller et al. 2011). The authors then continue arguing that the multicomponent model conceives working memory as structurally separate from long-term memory, and that this assumed separation has drawbacks with regard to explaining a number of effects in multimedia studies. As an alternative foundation for multimedia learning theories, they propose Cowan's (1999) embedded-processes model.While this effort should be highly valued, the present commentary argues (a) that Schweppe and Rummer's rejection of the multicomponent model as a basis for multimedia theories is based on a misinterpretation of the relationship between working memory and long-term memory in the multicomponent model, (b) that the multicomponent model and the embeddedprocesses model can be seen as complementary approaches, and (c) that a complete theory of multimedia learning needs to fully integrate both central executive (i.e., attentional) and functionally specialized (e.g., phonological and visuospatial) mechanisms. The Relationship Between Working Memory and Long-term Memory in Baddeley's ModelSchweppe and Rummer state that the multicomponent model Bconceives of working memory as a cognitive system separate from long-term memory^(p.286). The crucial question, however, is whether this separation is structural or functional. Schweppe and Rummer seem Educ Psychol Rev

show abstract

“…This new model is different from the Cowan et al (2014) model in which storage capacity is divided between central and peripheral storage. The pointer collections of our model, presumably centrally located, do not themselves contain any storage, only point to storage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pointer collections of our model, presumably centrally located, do not themselves contain any storage, only point to storage. They make up the basis of a center of attention which can be quickly changed from one pointer collection to another; rather than the center of attention contemplated by Cowan et al (2014) in which several objects are in the center of attention at any one time. Our model is not inconsistent with McElree's (2006) dichotomy of focus of attention and peripheral in which the periphery is not capacity limited.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Working Memory Structure Revealed in Analysis of Recall Errors

Ershova

Tarnow

2017

Vestn. Ross. univ. družby nar., Ser. Psihol. pedagog.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We analyzed working memory errors stemming from 193 Russian college students taking the Tarnow Unchunkable Test utilizing double digit items on a visual display.In three-item trials with at most one error per trial, single incorrect tens and ones digits ("singlets") were overrepresented and made up the majority of errors, indicating a base 10 organization.These errors indicate that there are separate memory maps for each position and that there are pointers that can move primarily within these maps. Several pointers make up a pointer collection. The number of pointer collections possible is the working memory capacity limit. A model for self-organizing maps is constructed in which the organization is created by turning common pointer collections into maps thereby replacing a pointer collection with a single pointer.The factors 5 and 11 were underrepresented in the errors, presumably because base 10 properties beyond positional order were used for error correction, perhaps reflecting the existence of additional maps of integers divisible by 5 and integers divisible by 11.

show abstract

Central and peripheral components of working memory storage.

Cited by 148 publications

References 147 publications

Interference and memory capacity limitations.

Interference and memory capacity limitations.

The Multicomponent Working Memory Model, Attention, and Long-term Memory in Multimedia Learning: A Comment on Schweppe and Rummer (2014)

Working Memory Structure Revealed in Analysis of Recall Errors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About