Alternative to the Multistore Model of Memory

Alternative to the Multistore Model of Memory

The working memory model was proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) as

a way to represent short-term memory in terms of further subdivisions.

It suggests that working memory consists of three components. These

are the central executive, the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial

sketchpad. The central executive is the component of working memory

which is modality free (i.e. not visual or auditory). It is the most

important component in the model and is responsible for monitoring and

coordinating the operation of the slave systems. It is flexible, in

that it can process information from any modality and also has some

storage capacity, although this is very limited. It seems to play a

major role in attention, planning and in synthesising information, not

only from the slave systems but also from LTM. The phonological loop

stores a limited number of sounds for brief periods and can be thought

of as an inner ear. It is now thought to be made up of two components

(Gathercole and Baddeley 1993). One component is the phonological

store, which allows acoustically coded items to be stored for a brief

period. The other component is the articulatory control system, which

allows subvocal repetition of the items stored in the phonological

store. The visuo-spatial scratch pad stores visual and spatial

information and can be thought of as an inner eye. Like the

phonological loop, it has limited capacity, but the limits of the two

systems are independent. In other words, it is possible, for example,

to rehearse a set of digits in the phonological loop while

simultaneously making decisions about the spatia...

... middle of paper ...

...no one has been able to quantify it experimentally. Richardson

(1984) argues that there are problems in specifying the precise

functioning of the central executive. He believes that the terminology

is vague and can be used to explain any kind of results. In other

words, it can give rise to a circular argument, i.e. if we give

participants an articulatory suppression task and this affects

performance, we assume the phonological loop is normally utilised in

the task, but if performance is not affected, we assume the central

executive is normally utilised in the task. Hence, it is difficult to

falsify the model. My view is that we cannot falsify this model since

the model is still being expanded and inaccurate ideas can be amended

in the process, meanwhile, it can still be thought of as a basis for

further investigation.