Talk:Working memory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.

B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Please keep an eye on 62.171.194.11 who has been vandalizing this page --EncephalonSeven 14:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1 This needs a lot of work
2 In response to Tony
3 recent rewrite
4 reference question
5 Need for citation

[edit] This needs a lot of work

The entry is woefully inadequate. In my view, the Baddleyan divisions should be described in terms of one of the explanations of working memory, not as widely accepted fact. Tony 07:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

oh. . seems not bad la

I agree :

More work needed (eg. what is the source of "Perhaps of greater importance, another study has found a period of working memory training increases a range of cognitive abilities and increases IQ test scores approximately 8%.")?

[edit] In response to Tony

I've added a little bit about Baddeley and Hitch's departure from the earlier concept. Also added the discussion of the episodic buffer, the fourth component. User:Cozcycoach 15:55, 02 Sept 2005 (PCT)

OK, what about Ericsson, who shed major light on the fact that Baddeley observed only novices in the tasks at issue? Ericsson is on about expertise and working memory. Tony 00:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I will check it out. Did you take a look at Global Workspace Theory? That one needs some editing, too. Cozycoach

Hmm, interesting—I'd never hear of that theory. It's a rather short article.

This article needs to be LONG! Working memory is a huge topic that deserves considerable detail. I can contribute, but would prefer to do so on a collaborative basis. I wonder whether it would be a good idea to start a Wikiproject on cognitive psychology, to gather a team of contributors who might, over time, strengthen and coordinate articles in this area. Tony 08:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a rather huge project. There is an entry for "cognitive psychology" already, a very short one. Did you want to expand that one? Cozycoach 17:55, 3 Sept 2005 (PST)

It could be a huge project, but I had something more modest in mind: simply gathering together contributors, providing some coordination of their efforts, and establishing some guidelines for the articles. For example, it would be useful to list articles on the basis of their current state: stubs, those that could do with expansion, those that desperately need copy editing, are intended to be brought up to peer-review or FA consideration, etc. At least that would show the state of play, and might encourage contributors to apply their talents. Tony 03:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. I will keep working on small projects until you organize a team. Count me in as a contributor. Cozycoach 15:35, 6 Sept 2005 (PST)

[edit] recent rewrite

That's looking better now, but who are you? Please register under a username. The article still needs to be expanded. Tony 02:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I've gone cold on the idea of organising a large-scale project. Recent work on this article has much improved it; thanks. What the Baddeley section still lacks is an acknowledgement that B.'s work involved only novices at his dual tasks. While his work is of great significance, it leaves open the question of how his participants would have faired if permitted to (extensively) rehearse the tasks he observed. Ericsson, by contrast, deals with working/long-term memory in relation to the acquisition of expertise. It's the opposite of B.'s approach in some ways.

I did a big lit. review of all of this back in 2001, but haven't touched it since, which is why I'm out of date by now.

Tony 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reference question

Hi I have a quick question about this entry. In the intro section it says: "Later research revealed that span does depend ... even on features of the chunks within a category. For instance, span is lower for long than for short words." but it's not referenced. - Is there a good paper that reviews what some of these "features" are? I'm interested in this particularly with regards to spatial working memory capacity. I'm curious to know if, for instance, we can hold in mind more red shapes than blue, or more 3D objects than 2D objects, etc. Hope this isn't a silly question... -Mako

Dear Mako, here's a good reference for differences in capacity estimates for different kinds of visual items: Alvarez, G. A., & Cavanagh, P. (2004). The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by visual information load and by number of objects. Psychological Science, 15, 106-111. Klaus