On the nature of the relationship between processing activity and item retention in children

Towse, John N.; Hitch, Graham J.; Hutton, Una

doi:10.1016/s0022-0965(02)00003-6

Cited by 70 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Les travaux de Towse et Hitch (1995 ;Towse, Hitch, & Hutton, 2002) rappelés ci-dessus ont mis en lumière l'idée que le délai de rétention entre la présentation des items à maintenir et leur rappel est un facteur déterminant pour comprendre le fonctionnement de la mémoire de travail. Dans notre première étude, nous avons donc comparé deux tâches d'empan complexe pour lesquelles la durée des épisodes de traitement était similaire, mais dont la demande attentionnelle différait.…”

Section: L'accroissement De La Quantité D'attentionunclassified

Le développement de la mémoire de travail : perspectives dans le cadre du modèle de partage temporel des ressources

Camos

Barrouillet²

2014

Psychologie Française

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: L'accroissement De La Quantité D'attentionunclassified

Le développement de la mémoire de travail : perspectives dans le cadre du modèle de partage temporel des ressources

Camos

Barrouillet²

2014

Psychologie Française

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, as we have seen, these authors proposed a simple effect of time by assuming that there would be no active maintenance of stored items while the processing component of the task is performed (Towse, Hitch and Hutton 2002). In this case, memory traces would suffer from an uninterrupted decay during the phases devoted to processing, recall performance depending on their total duration.…”

Section: Time and Cognitive Loadmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…recent account of the processes underlying performance on working memory span tasks put forward by Towse and Hitch (1995;Hitch, Towse and Hutton 2001;Towse, Hitch and Hutton 1998, 2000, 2002. Working memory span tasks are complex span tasks in which the participants have to maintain some to-be-remembered items while performing a concurrent activity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The time-based resource-sharing model of working memory

Barrouillet¹,

Camos²

2007

The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since Baddeley and Hitch's (1974) seminal proposal to distinguish between short-term and working memory, several influential models and theories have been put forward to account for the structure and functioning of a working memory thought of as the core system of cognition devoted to the maintenance and processing of relevant information. As Engle and Oransky (1999) suggested, deas about temporary storage in memory during the previous decades have moved from multi-store models and structural approaches championed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974;Baddeley and Logie 1999) to more dynamic or process-oriented models of working memory (Cowan 1995(Cowan 1999Engle, Cantor and Carullo 1992;Engle, Kane and Tuholski 1999; Lovett, Reder and Lebiere 1999; Schneider and Detweiller 1987). By conceiving working memory as the activated part of long-term memory rather than as a structure or a set of cognitive structures, these theories have emphasized functional aspects of cognition related to the way activation is produced, maintained or even inhibited, and to the way cognitive processes use the activated items of knowledge. The main question, which seemed to be 'How is working memory organized?' has progressively become 'How does working memory work?'. We do not claim to know how working memory works and admit that the reader will not find the final answer in this chapter. However, we hope to provide some elements to shed light on questions such as 'How is the relevant information maintained active during concurrent processing?', 'What is the nature of the resource to be shared between maintenance and processing?', 'How is this sharing achieved?' , and thus 'What are the limiting factors of working memory functioning?' .Retracing the history of the literature on short-term and working memory, Engle and Oransky (1999) noted that models have become more complex and more flexible. Whereas the first descriptions of working memory functioning mainly concerned the articulatory loop, which is closest in character to the original concept of a short-term store, further models provided thorough descriptions of the relationships between short-and long-term memory, of processes devoted to the activation and maintenance of information, as well as of the role of attention in selecting relevant information and monitoring working memory functioning. Several complex span tasks designed to evaluate working memory capacity proved to be reliable and predictive of high level cognition, and the relations between working memory capacity, controlled attention and general intelligence have been investigated extensively. However, these models might have overlooked an important factor in accounting for cognition, namely time.Many models of working memory mentioned time as an important factor, but almost exclusively to account for forgetting from short-term memory. For example, Baddeley (1990Baddeley ( , 2000 suggested that the traces within the articulatory or phonological loop decay within about 2 s unless they are maintained by a process of subvocal arti...

show abstract

“…There are two, related, differences between complex span and dual task approaches that might have important implications for how interpolated processing gives rise to forgetting. First, the fact that participants switch between successive processing and storage operations in a complex How does processing 9 span task means that participants might strategically delay their attempt to carry out the processing operation that follows a given storage item in order to refresh, rehearse, or consolidate that item, or the list of items presented up to that point in the task (Barrouillet et al, 2004;Lépine, Bernadin, & Barrouillet, 2005;Towse, Hitch, & Hutton, 2002).Second, in complex span tasks storage items are presented incrementally, so that the kind of maintenance or consolidation operations that can take place during these switches between processing and storage can benefit, at least at the start of the trial, from being focussed on only a subset of the memoranda. For example, after presentation of the first item participants only have to refresh, rehearse or consolidate that item, and so such operations are likely to be effective.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

"How does processing affect storage in working memory tasks? Evidence for both domain-general and domain-specific effects": Correction to Jarrold et al. (2011).

Jarrold¹,

Tam²,

Baddeley³

et al. 2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms AbstractThree studies are presented that examine why the processing demands within working memory tasks lead to forgetting of the memoranda. In each, separate groups of adult participants were asked to carry out either verbal or nonverbal operations on exactly the same processing materials, while maintaining verbal storage items. The imposition of verbal processing tended to produce greater forgetting, despite the fact that verbal processing operations took no longer to complete than nonverbal processing operations.However, nonverbal processing did cause forgetting, relative to baseline control conditions, and evidence from the timing of individuals' processing responses suggested that individuals in both processing groups slowed their responses in order to 'refresh' the memoranda. Taken together the data suggest that processing has a domain-general effect on working memory performance by impeding refreshment of memoranda, but can also cause effects, which appear domain-specific, either by blocking rehearsal or as a result of interference. In addition, the balance of these effects depends on the structure of the working memory task employed. How does processing 3How does processing affect storage in working memory tasks? Evidence for both domain-general and domain-specific effects Complex span tasks are seen by many to be the 'gold standard' measure of working memory Jarrold & Towse, 2006). In complex span tasks, participants are asked to encode lists of memoranda (which are to be recalled later) while intermittently performing some kind of distracting processing activity (Case, Kurland, & Goldberg, 1982;Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). In general, complex span performance is inferior to that of simple span, which measures immediate recall of memoranda after their presentation in the absence of distracting processing activity (e.g., Duff & Logie, 2001;Hutton & Towse, 2001;La Pointe & Engle, 1990).Consequently, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the presence of the processing activity within a complex span task tends to cause forgetting of memoranda presented during the task.One reason for the substantial research interest in the complex span task is that performance on this measure is typically a strong correlate of measures of intelligence in adults (Bayliss, Jarrold, Gunn, & Baddeley, 2003;Kyllonen & Christal, 1990;Süß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002) and of academic achievement in children (Bayliss et al., 2003; Bull, Epsy, & Wiebe, 2008;Swanson, 2008). Furthermore, many would argue that complex span performance is a significantly stronger correlate of these abilities than is simple span (Conway, Cowan, Bunting, Therriault, & Minkoff, 2002; Engle, Tuholski, Luaghlin, & Conway, 1999; Oberauer, Schulze, Wilhelm, & Süß, 2005), indicating that the forgetting caused by the imposit...

show abstract

On the nature of the relationship between processing activity and item retention in children

Cited by 70 publications

References 23 publications

Le développement de la mémoire de travail : perspectives dans le cadre du modèle de partage temporel des ressources

Le développement de la mémoire de travail : perspectives dans le cadre du modèle de partage temporel des ressources

The time-based resource-sharing model of working memory

"How does processing affect storage in working memory tasks? Evidence for both domain-general and domain-specific effects": Correction to Jarrold et al. (2011).

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About