Let me respond briefly to Ken's statements below.
>
>This is a 2 part answer (having to do with the value 7 +/-2 and
>having to do with the concept of STM) , and I will allow the
>real cognitive psychologists to correct and expand on my answer.
>
>1. Is STM a myth?
>
>The *serial* process model of memory (iconic --> stm --> memory)
>has been rejected by many. Alan Baddeley is one among many and
>provides only 1 of several approaches.
>
>One kind of approach suggests that we think of memory as 1
>single system, but that a particular task requires activiation
>of portions of the memory system. The portions of the system
>that are currently active is/are considered "working memory."
>But (like STM) it is of fixed capacity.
>
>
I find myself most impressed by the recent work of Randy Engle and his
colleagues on working memory. In a book chapter that's currently in press,
Engle argues that working memory really consists of an attentional
component that is probably domain free, coupled with some domain specific
subcomponents (i.e., similar to Baddeley's notions of the phonological loop
and visuospatial sketchpad). The old classic notion of STM really fits in
with the phonological loop in the sense of being a limited capacity system
that needs resource from the central executive in order to keep things
active.
What is interesting in Engle's new chapter is that he has found that that
WM contributes unique variance to scores on a measure of general fluid
intelligence even after removing the variance shared by STM. Engle and his
colleagues conclude: (1) complex span tasks of WM capacity reflect the
construct STM plus the construct of controlled attention; (2) the construct
of controlled attention has a strong relationship with the construct
general fluid intelligence; and (3) there is little or no relationship
between the construct STM and the construct of Gf.
Reference:
Engle, Kane, & Tuholski (in press). Individual diffs in work memory
capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid
intelligecne, and functions of the prefrontal cortext. In Miyake & Shah
(Eds.), Models of Working Memory.(don't know the publisher).
>2. Is 7 +/-2 a myth?
>
>Here you need to go back to the source, the article by George
>Miller (1956). Miller summarizes a series of studies across a
>wide variety of tasks (absolute judgment in uni- and
>multidimensional identification tasks , memory span,
>subsitizing) that lead him to two conclusions:
>
> a) There is a limit on our capacity to correctly
> identify or remember the stimuli in a set.
>
> b) This limit is smaller than most people would predict,
> about 2.5 bits of alternatives in the task.
>
>The 7 +/- 2 is an empirical generalization.
>
>
>Ken
>
>----------------------
>Kenneth M. Steele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Associate Professor
>Dept. of Psychology
>Appalachian State University
>Boone, NC 28608
>USA
>
>
>
>
>
***********************************
Mark A. Casteel, Ph.D.
Penn State York
1031 Edgecomb Ave.
York, PA 17403
Work: (717) 771-4028
Fax: (717) 771-8404
http://www.yk.psu.edu/~mac13/index.htm
***********************************
