Psychology of Learning and Motivation (eBook)

Advances in Research and Theory

eBook Download: EPUB

2008 | 1. Auflage
304 Seiten
Elsevier Science (Verlag)
9780080921686 (ISBN)

Infos

The Psychology of Learning and Motivation publishes empirical and theoretical contributions in cognitive and experimental psychology, ranging from classical and instrumental conditioning to complex learning and problem solving. Volume 49 contains chapters on short-term memory, theory and measurement of working memory capacity limits, development of perceptual grouping in infancy, co-constructing conceptual domains through family conversations and activities, the concrete substrates of abstract rule use, ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success, and lexical expertise and reading skill.

Inhalt

Cover 1
The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 4
Copyright Page 5
TOC$Contents 6
Contributors 10
CH$Chapter 1: Short-Term Memory: New Data and A Model 12
I. Short-Term Memory: A Wealth of Data and Theories 12
II. Explanatory Constructs and New Data 25
III. C-SOB: A Model of Serial Recall in STM 32
IV. Experimental Predictions 42
V. General Discussion 48
VI. Concluding Remarks 54
References 55
CH$Chapter 2: Theory and Measurement of Working Memory Capacity Limits 60
I. Key Theoretical Issues 61
II. Space (Chunk Capacity) Limits 66
III. Energy Limits, Time Limits, and Combinations of Limits 86
IV. Ideographic Evidence 91
V. Addressing the Holistic-Versus-Analytic Distinction 107
VI. Conclusion 108
References 109
CH$Chapter 3: What Goes with What? Development of Perceptual Grouping in Infancy 116
I. Introduction 117
II. Historical Views on the Development of Perceptual Organization 118
III. Initial Empirical Efforts and Their Theoretical Implications 119
IV. Further Empirical Work on the Classic Grouping Principles 122
V. Infants' Use of a Classic Grouping Principle to Organize a More Complex Stimulus 130
VI. Infants' Utilization of New Grouping Principles 132
VII. Classic Grouping Principles Reconsidered: The Special Case of Form Similarity 137
VIII. Lightness Versus Form Similarity: Automatic Versus Constructivist Grouping? 143
IX. Theoretical Significance and Connections with the Literature 146
References 154
CH$Chapter 4: Co-constructing Conceptual Domains Through Family Conversations and Activities 158
I. Introduction 159
II. Studies of Development in Context 163
III. Conclusions About Cognitive Development in Context of Conversations 172
References 174
CH$Chapter 5: The Concrete Substrates of Abstract Rule Use 178
I. Introduction 179
II. When Rules Are Not Rules: Rule-Plus-Exception Category Learning 181
III. Learning Abstract Rules from Examples 193
IV. Learning to Reason About Rewards in Dynamic Environments 202
V. General Discussion 212
References 215
CH$Chapter 6: Ambiguity, Accessibility, and a Division of Labor for Communicative Success 220
I. Introduction 221
II. Listener-Centered Grammatical Encoding: "That" as Disambiguator 222
III. Speaker-Centered Grammatical Encoding: "That" as Syntactic Pause 234
IV. Why Do Speakers Not Avoid Ambiguity? 243
V. How Ambiguous Is Language Really? 250
VI. Why Are Speakers' Utterances so Unambiguous? 252
VII. Conclusion: A Division of Labor for Communicative Success 254
References 255
CH$Chapter 7: Lexical Expertise and Reading Skill 258
I. Introduction 259
II. Defining and Assessing Lexical Expertise 261
III. Lexical Expertise and Reading Comprehension 274
IV. Conclusions 283
References 288
IDX$Index 294
Contents of Recent Volumes 300

Textauszug

Theory and Measurement of Working Memory Capacity Limits

Nelson Cowan; Candice C. Morey; Zhijian Chen; Amanda L. Gilchrist; J. Scott Saults

Abstract

We review the evidence for various kinds of limit in the capability of working memory, the small amount of information that can be held in mind at once. To distinguish between types of limit in working memory, we invoke metaphors of space (capacity), time (decay and speed), and energy (control of attention). The review focuses primarily on recent evidence on a limit in how many chunks can be held in working memory, how this kind of limit can be measured, and how it can be distinguished from other types of limits. We explore the theoretical and practical importance of different working memory limits in research that is nomothetic (referring to general laws) and ideographic (referring to individual and group differences). The appropriate measure of working memory depends on one's holistic or analytic scientific interest.

I Key Theoretical Issues

A INTRODUCTION

Cognitive psychology casts a spotlight on both what people can do and what they cannot do. A person often can keep thinking about an important goal for some time, as when a driver knows he or she must watch for the second right turn. However, the driver can do so only by forfeiting other processing, such as complex conversation with a passenger. Watching a soccer game, a viewer can observe several players on the field at once but often will experience surprising (to the viewer) lapses in awareness of what is going on elsewhere on the field or in the stadium at that moment.

In describing the miracle of what humans can do, one inevitably is describing also the limits to what they can do. Although various animals including humans can visually scan an entire field or forest at once looking for predators or prey, humans excel at sequestering a small portion of the information to allow amazingly in‐depth analysis of the selected portion. This is what the research literature shows. Miller (1956) wrote his famous article about humans typically being limited to remembering about seven items at once and, shortly afterward, Miller, Galanter, & Pribram (1960) wrote about how this limited memory may act as a “working memory” to keep in mind goals and other information that one needs to complete a task. In the present book series, Baddeley and Hitch (1974) wrote a seminal article on working memory suggesting that it must be composed of several parts that operate separately. Since then, research on the topic of working memory certainly has blossomed, both in the form of behavioral research on the topic and, especially recently, in the form of related neurobiological research. In our chapter, we focus on working memory capacity limits, with special attention on item limits like Miller (1956). To keep things simple we will not go into the various other terms that are used for similar concepts of a temporary memory, including short‐term memory and immediate memory. These terms will be used interchangeably with working memory.

The topic of working memory limits is quite broad, considering that working memory is involved in almost every cognitive task and often sets boundaries for the performance of that task. For example, one cannot successfully complete arithmetic problems without some working memory of intermediate results and what types of calculation are still to be done. Probably for this kind of reason, researchers have approached the topic of working memory limits from a number of different theoretical vantage points. It is important to acknowledge these vantage points in order to avoid being stuck thinking that different investigators disagree on substantive points when, in many cases, they simply are interested in different issues. Three issues that we introduce below refer to the type of working memory limits, the goal in studying these limits, and the level of analysis at which the limits are studied. We explain where our own recent research fits into this family of questions and what it is telling us.

The main emphasis of the present review is on the possibility of quantifying and characterizing limits in the number of chunks of information that individuals can retain in working memory at once, the theoretical and practical significance of this chunk capacity limit, and how it can be distinguished from other types of limits on working memory. We do not go into great detail regarding the specifics of different theoretical frameworks but we do have much in common with theorists who, in various ways, have emphasized a key role of attention in understanding the strengths and limits of both working memory storage and information processing (e.g., Awh & Jonides, 2001; Baddeley, 2000; Cowan, 1995, 1999, 2001; Davelaar, Goshen-Gottstein, Ashkenazi, Haarman, & Usher, 2005; Grossberg, 1978; Lovett, Reder, & Lebière, 1999; Unsworth & Engle, 2007).

B DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORKING MEMORY LIMITS

After Salthouse (1985; also Kail & Salthouse, 1994), we point to an analogy between limits in working memory and limits in physical events, which occur within a certain time and space and involve a certain amount of energy. Working memory representations might be limited in time; they could fade quickly over time even in the absence of any sort of interference. Alternatively, working memory representations might last over time, but only until they are displaced by other representations that become active because of outside events or internal thoughts. The notion (Miller, 1956) that only a certain number of items can be held at once is like a space limit in which, say, only a certain number of eggs can fit in an egg carton. This is what we will term chunk capacity limits. The third possibility is that there is an energy limit, in which electrophysiological activity is in some not‐quite‐defined sense a type of energy. If the representation of each item required a certain amount of this neural energy per unit of time and other mental processes did as well, then any given representation would face competition from other representations in working memory or other mental processing that used the energy. This type of limit is often referred to as resource limits. This tripartite taxonomy is not meant as an assertion that no other factors can influence the fate of a representation in working memory. For one thing, multiple limits may apply (e.g., both space and energy). Moreover, there are additional factors. For example, the ability to use knowledge to form larger chunks of information eases the load on working memory (Miller, 1956). Thus, the letter sequence irsciafbi is much easier to remember in working memory if one notices that it is composed of three‐letter acronyms for US government agencies, the Internal Revenue Service, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The present chapter is focused on identifying space or chunk capacity limits, and attempting to specify the relation between these types of limits and possible limits in time and energy.

C NOMOTHETIC AND IDEOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS

Nomothetic questions relate to how a process normally or typically operates, whereas ideographic questions relate to how individuals (or groups) differ from this norm. Both of them are important and have played an important role in research on working memory. Perhaps most importantly, they should not be confused with one another.

Much of the early research on working memory was nomothetic in nature. Miller (1956) noted that the normal working memory limit was about seven items (give or take two) but he did not have much information on ideographic patterns. A large literature grew up following Baddeley and Hitch (1974) in which various manipulations were used to isolate components of working memory in the normal individual (Baddeley, 1986; Cowan, 2005; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993; Logie & Gilhooly, 1998; Shah & Miyake, 2005). For instance, a phonological distracting task would interfere with verbal memory, but not spatial memory, whereas a spatial interfering task would do the reverse. A simple distracting task, such as repeating one letter would interfere with automatically held verbal memory, whereas only a more complex and engaging task, such as generating random numbers, would interfere with the central executive processes thought to be needed to control the flow of information from one memory store to another (Baddeley, 1996).

There also were ideographic approaches early on. The invention of the digit span task, in which the experimenter estimates how many digits the subject can repeat, was developed to help determine the maturational age equivalent of a particular child (e.g., Binet & Simon, 1916/1980; Bolton, 1892; Jacobs, 1887; Wechsler, 1944, 1991). That is, clearly the normal digit span increased with age in childhood and the question was the age norm that matched performance in a particular child. However, information carried over from nomothetic experimental methods can be of great help in solving ideographic questions. For example, the testing techniques developed by Alan Baddeley and colleagues have been used in many studies by Susan Gathercole and colleagues to study how different components of working memory change with age and how individual differences in each component are related to learning disabilities...

Produkt-Details

• Erscheint lt. Verlag: 4.7.2008
• Mitarbeit: Herausgeber (Serie): Brian H. Ross
• Sprache: englisch
• Themenwelt: Geisteswissenschaften ► Psychologie ► Allgemeine Psychologie
• Themenwelt: Geisteswissenschaften ► Psychologie ► Biopsychologie / Neurowissenschaften
• Themenwelt: Geisteswissenschaften ► Psychologie ► Pädagogische Psychologie
• Themenwelt: Geisteswissenschaften ► Psychologie ► Verhaltenstherapie
• ISBN-13: 9780080921686 / 9780080921686