Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system.

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to formulate a revised model of information processing that takes into account recent research on memory storage, selective attention, effortful versus automatic processing, and the mutual constraints that these areas place on one another. One distinctive aspect of the proposed model is the inclusion of two phases of sensory storage in each modality. The first phase extends sensation for several hundred milliseconds, whereas the second phase is a vivid recollection of sensation. The mechanism of at least the longer phase is the activation of features in long-term memory, comparable to the mechanism of non-sensory, short-term storage. Another distinctive aspect of the model is that habituation/dishabituation and central executive processes together are assumed to determine the focus of attention, without the need for either an early or a late attentional filter. Research issues that contribute to a comparison of models are discussed. Broadbent (1958) proposed a general model of the human information-processing system that was primarily designed to account for how we attend to some stimuli while ignoring others (i.e., our selective-attention capabilities) and how we retain stimulus information, in various forms, both before and after attending to it (i.e., our memory storage capabilities). Although a version of Broadbent's model still appears in almost every textbook of cognitive psychology, researchers today are ambivalent toward it; the model appears to be inconsistent with many research findings. Schneider (1987) noted that "in the 1970s there was a clear movement away" from this sort of model to "a variety of representations (e.g., levels of processing, schemata, semantic networks, and production systems)" (p. 73). Broadbent's (1958) model of processing can be termed a "pipeline" model, in which information is conveyed in a fixed serial order from one storage structure to the next: from sensory storage to short-term storage and then to long-term storage. Voluntary control of the system was represented by a selective-attention device or "filter" located after the sensory store and by information feedback loops from the high-level processing system to earlier processing stages. Recently, Broadbent (1984) summarized a number of reasons why this sort of model may be obsolete. They include (a) its characterization of the subject as a passive recipient of information, (b) massive "top-down" influences in perception in which higher-level information This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant 2-R23-HD21338-02 awarded to the author.I thank David Balota, Neal Kroll, Michael Posner, Scott Saults, two anonymous reviewers, and the participants in my information processing seminar for commenting on earlier drafts of the manuscript. However, they may not share all of the views expressed.

Spatial maps in frontal and prefrontal cortex

“…The contents of working memory are often viewed as an activated subset of information from long-term memory, with the focus of attention determining what information becomes active (Cowan, 1988;Engle et al, 1999). Such a model does not require that the attentional controller, perhaps DLPFC, actually represents the information.…”

On the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive aptitudes

“…The control of attention was an important element of early theories of information processing (e.g., Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968) and is embodied in the central executive component of theoretical conceptions of WM (e.g., Baddeley, 1986;Cowan, 1988Cowan, , 1995. A great deal of recent research has converged on the importance of the control of attention in carrying out the standard type of WM task involving separate storage and processing components.…”

“…In contrast, in the conception of WM as a multi-component system (e.g., Baddeley, 1986;Baddeley & Logie, 1999), attention tended to be associated with executive control but not with storage per se; that storage was assumed to be automatic once the information was entered into it, and it was assumed to be time-limited instead of capacitylimited. Cowan (1988Cowan ( , 1995Cowan ( , 1999 advocated both attention-free and attention-dependent forms of storage, with only the attention-dependent forms limited in capacity per se. Broadbent (1975) suggested that there is a form of storage that is limited to 3 items.…”

“…There were no tradeoffs between the visual and auditory tasks; no indication that individuals scoring better on memory for ignored speech did worse on the rhyming task, nor any indication within participants of better speech memory on trials with poorer rhyming-task performance (see . It would be difficult to attend to the boring and repetitive spoken lists, most of which require no response, during the more interesting rhyming game, because of habituation of orienting to the sounds (e.g., Sokolov, 1963;Cowan, 1988).…”

The psychology of intelligence analysis: Drivers of prediction accuracy in world politics.

“…The focus on process makes terms such as "top down" versus "bottom up" obsolete. In terms of conventional theory, the holographic account is, perhaps, closest to Cowan's (1988Cowan's ( , 1993 idea that STM is an activated subset of long-term memory. He postulated an attentional mechanism activates a subset of memory.…”