The Recall of Information from Working Memory

Towse, John N.; Cowan, Nelson; Hitch, Graham J.; Horton, Neil

doi:10.1027/1618-3169.55.6.371

Cited by 31 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, when there were more items to remember, all responses were slowed by a roughly constant amount. This pattern has also been observed for complex span tasks (Towse, Cowan, Hitch, & Horton, 2008). In a free recall task, Rohrer (1996) showed that the time taken to recall items increased substantially when the number of items in the study list increased from 8 to 16 words.…”

Section: Benchmarks For Working Memory 19supporting

confidence: 61%

Benchmarks for models of short-term and working memory.

Oberauer¹,

Lewandowsky²,

Awh³

et al. 2018

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

319

306

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Any mature field of research in psychology-such as short-term/working memory-is characterized by a wealth of empirical findings. It is currently unrealistic to expect a theory to explain them all; theorists must satisfice with explaining a subset of findings. The aim of the present article is to make the choice of that subset less arbitrary and idiosyncratic than is current practice. We propose criteria for identifying benchmark findings that every theory in a field should be able to explain: Benchmarks should be reproducible, generalize across materials and methodological variations, and be theoretically informative. We propose a set of benchmarks for theories and computational models of short-term and working memory. The benchmarks are described in as theory-neutral a way as possible, so that they can serve as empirical common ground for competing theoretical approaches. Benchmarks are rated on three levels according to their priority for explanation. Selection and ratings of the benchmarks is based on consensus among the authors, who jointly represent a broad range of theoretical perspectives on working memory, and they are supported by a survey among other experts on working memory. The article is accompanied by a web page providing an open forum for discussion and for submitting proposals for new benchmarks; and a repository for reference data sets for each benchmark. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Section: Benchmarks For Working Memory 19supporting

confidence: 61%

Benchmarks for models of short-term and working memory.

Oberauer¹,

Lewandowsky²,

Awh³

et al. 2018

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

319

306

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous work has established that there are LTM contributions in what had been considered WM tasks (Cowan, 1988; Healy, Fendrich, Cunningham, & Till, 1987; Towse, Cowan, Hitch, & Horton, 2008; Unsworth & Engle, 2007; Waugh & Norman, 1965). For the present data set we have found it necessary to hypothesize that a fixed WM capacity can be supplemented by another mechanism that is not capacity-limited, in particular the activated portion of LTM (cf.…”

Section: Present Recognition Task and Its Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Models of verbal working memory capacity: What does it take to make them work?

Cowan

Rouder

Blume

et al. 2012

Psychological Review

Self Cite

125

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theories of working memory (WM) capacity limits will be more useful when we know what aspects of performance are governed by the limits and what aspects are governed by other memory mechanisms. Whereas considerable progress has been made on models of WM capacity limits for visual arrays of separate objects, less progress has been made in understanding verbal materials, especially when words are mentally combined to form multi-word units or chunks. Toward a more comprehensive theory of capacity limits, we examine models of forced-choice recognition of words within printed lists, using materials designed to produce multi-word chunks in memory (e.g., leather brief case). Several simple models were tested against data from a variety of list lengths and potential chunk sizes, with test conditions that only imperfectly elicited the inter-word associations. According to the most successful model, participants retained about 3 chunks on average in a capacity-limited region of WM, with some chunks being only subsets of the presented associative information (e.g., leather brief case retained with leather as one chunk and brief case as another). The addition to the model of an activated long-term memory (LTM) component unlimited in capacity was needed. A fixed capacity limit appears critical to account for immediate verbal recognition and other forms of WM. We advance a model-based approach that allows capacity to be assessed despite other important processing contributions. Starting with a psychological-process model of WM capacity developed to understand visual arrays, we arrive at a more unified and complete model.

show abstract

“…Its contribution to working memory can be measured through recall item duration, that is, the time that elapses between the recall of two successive items. Unlike span length (i.e., the highest amount of information that children can recall accurately), recall durations offer direct insight on the temporal dynamic of memory search and recall processes and they correlate with academic achievement over and beyond span length (Cowan, 1992; Cowan et al, 1994, 1998, 2003; Towse, Cowan, Horton, & Whytock, 2008; Towse et al, 2008). Critically, the recall duration for the first item in the memorandum, that is, the preparatory interval, is longer than subsequent item recall durations in working memory span tasks during middle childhood and adulthood.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of reactive and proactive control to children’s working memory performance: Insight from item recall durations in response sequence planning.

Chevalier¹,

James²,

Wiebe³

et al. 2014

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study addressed whether developmental improvement in working memory span task performance relies upon a growing ability to proactively plan response sequences during childhood. 213 children completed a working memory span task in which they used a touchscreen to reproduce orally presented sequences of animal names. Children were assessed longitudinally at seven time points between 3 and 10 years of age, and 21 young adults completed the same task. Proactive response sequence planning was assessed by comparing recall durations for the first item (preparatory interval) and subsequent items. At preschool age, the preparatory interval was generally shorter than subsequent item recall durations, whereas it was systematically longer during elementary school and in adults. Although children mostly approached the task reactively at preschool, they proactively planned response sequences with increasing efficiency from age 7 on, like adults. These findings clarify the nature of the changes in executive control that support working memory performance with age.

show abstract

The Recall of Information from Working Memory

Cited by 31 publications

References 47 publications

Benchmarks for models of short-term and working memory.

Benchmarks for models of short-term and working memory.

Models of verbal working memory capacity: What does it take to make them work?

Contribution of reactive and proactive control to children’s working memory performance: Insight from item recall durations in response sequence planning.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About