Psychology C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Working memory (also referred to as short-term memory, depending on the specific theory).

I think this lead in is misleading as there are a number of theories that make a strong distinction between the two. -- BrianFennell (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Under "Training of working memory" section. Can someone remove this? 203.171.192.169 (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! Please feel free to be bold and remove the spam link. Lova Falk (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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%.")?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Does this article provide the needed citations for "Hitzig and Ferrier"?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2405/is_n1_v120/ai_14174315

A History of Experimental Psychology by Edwin G. Boring (1950) is a classic book in the field. He describes David Ferrier as an important investigator in the area of localization of brain function during the 1870's and 1880's. Ferrier localized the visual center in the occipital lobes by removing one lobe in monkeys and found they seemed to be blind in the opposite eye of the ablated lobe. Boring also refers to experiments by E. Hitzig and G. Fritsch in the 1870's who used electrical stimulation of the motor cortex of the dog brain to localize specific functions within it. The most important figure in specifying brain physiology, according to Boring, was Pierre Flourens who earlier in the century used "extirpation of parts" of the brain to determine function. The importance of Flourens was his insistence on experimental design -- his emphasis on carefully planned experients over drawing conclusions from observations of impaired functioning from accidental trauma or disease as was common at the time. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have eliminated the further reading section since it was becoming a link farm full of irrelevant propaganda. Some of the texts proposed are of use, but should probably be integrated in the text as refs. I post here part of my elimination so somebody can make use of them and integrate them in text:

• Atkinson, R.C., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes, In K.W. Spence (Ed.), ‘’The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 89-195), New York: Academic Press.
• Baddeley, A.D. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423.
• Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In B. Ross (Ed.). The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 44, pp. 145-199). NY: Elsevier.
• Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211-245.

I see after having added addtional articles in the section 'See also' as of Wikipedia:Layout#See_also_section. Sorry about this, I was not aware of this rule (that I personaly find questionable since I use See also as a quick summary of related concepts.). Anyway, if you decide to revert the change, I would suggest to keep Atkinson-Shiffrin memory model because it does not appear very explicitly in the article but more like a reference (and I almost overlooked it). Thanks --Nabeth (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking back at Wikipedia:Layout#See_also_section I read: 'A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one'. Not clear what to think about this. --Nabeth (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a big issue as long as the number of items isn't very large. I wouldn't worry about it at this point. Looie496 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for having only now seen this. I'm something of a stickler against unnecessary notices, and those that fit this categorization in the See also cause a great deal of personal irritation, as you may have witnessed in my comment on your talk page, Nabeth. At any rate, as Looie496 says, it may not be a "big issue", but one must look to the health of the article from a long-term, as well as a short-term, perspective. In principle, I do not find a problem with adding items not mentioned in the article body, which makes sense given the function of a see also is to provide windows for one to explore related areas not directly mentioned in the article.—αrgumziω ϝ 22:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]