How Does The Wmm Explain The Results Of Landry

How Does the Working Memory Model Explain the Results of Landry's Study?

Landry and Bartling's (2011) study on the effects of articulatory suppression on the phonological similarity effect is a cornerstone in understanding working memory. This article will delve deep into how the Baddeley and Hitch's Working Memory Model (WMM) explains the key findings of this influential research. We'll explore the core components of the WMM, the methodology of Landry and Bartling's experiment, and most importantly, how the model successfully accounts for the observed results, highlighting the role of the phonological loop and articulatory control process. Understanding this connection is crucial for grasping the complexities of verbal working memory and its limitations.

Introduction to the Working Memory Model (WMM)

The WMM, proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974), revolutionized our understanding of short-term memory (STM) by moving beyond the simplistic notion of a unitary store. Instead, it proposes a system comprised of multiple interacting components, each responsible for different aspects of working memory. These components include:

• The Central Executive: This is the "boss" of the system, responsible for controlling attention, allocating resources, and coordinating the other slave systems. It's a modality-free system, meaning it doesn't process specific types of information like visual or auditory. Its function is primarily executive control.

• The Phonological Loop: This component deals with auditory information and is crucial for verbal working memory. It has two sub-components:

  • The Phonological Store: A passive, temporary store for auditory information, holding speech-based sounds for a couple of seconds.
  • The Articulatory Control Process (ACP): An active, rehearsal mechanism that maintains information in the phonological store by subvocally rehearsing it. This process is crucial for preventing information decay in the phonological store.

• The Visuospatial Sketchpad: This component processes visual and spatial information. It allows us to temporarily store and manipulate visual images and spatial layouts. It's involved in tasks such as mental rotation and navigation.

• The Episodic Buffer: (Added later by Baddeley, 2000) This component acts as a temporary integrative store, binding information from different components of the WMM and long-term memory. It allows for the creation of a unified, episodic representation of information.

Landry and Bartling's (2011) Study: Methodology and Results

Landry and Bartling (2011) conducted an experiment investigating the impact of articulatory suppression on the phonological similarity effect. The phonological similarity effect refers to the observation that recalling lists of words that sound similar is more difficult than recalling lists of words that sound dissimilar. This is because similar-sounding words interfere with each other in the phonological store.

The experiment involved two groups:

• Control Group: Participants were presented with lists of words and asked to recall them immediately.

• Experimental Group: Participants were presented with the same lists of words, but this time they were required to perform articulatory suppression – repeating a meaningless sound (e.g., "the the the...") throughout the presentation and recall phases. This task occupies the articulatory control process, preventing rehearsal of the words.

The results strongly supported the predictions of the WMM. The control group showed a clear phonological similarity effect – recalling lists of similar-sounding words was more difficult than recalling lists of dissimilar-sounding words. However, the experimental group showed no phonological similarity effect. The articulatory suppression task eliminated the difference in recall performance between similar and dissimilar word lists.

Explaining Landry and Bartling's Findings with the WMM

The WMM elegantly explains the results of Landry and Bartling's study. Here's how:

1. The Phonological Similarity Effect in the Control Group: In the control group, the phonological loop was free to operate. Participants could rehearse the words presented, maintaining them in the phonological store. However, when the words were phonologically similar, they interfered with each other within the limited capacity of the phonological store, leading to poorer recall. Similar sounds overwrite each other, making it difficult to distinguish between them. This demonstrates the limitations of the phonological store and the importance of the ACP for maintaining information.

2. The Absence of the Phonological Similarity Effect in the Experimental Group: The experimental group's performance is even more revealing. The articulatory suppression task occupied the articulatory control process, preventing participants from rehearsing the presented words. This means that information couldn't be maintained effectively in the phonological store. Consequently, the phonological similarity effect disappeared. The words, regardless of their similarity, were equally susceptible to decay and interference in the absence of rehearsal. The ACP was unavailable to maintain and organize the information in the phonological store.

3. The Role of the Articulatory Control Process: This experiment highlights the crucial role of the articulatory control process (ACP) within the phonological loop. The ACP is essential for maintaining verbal information in working memory. When it's occupied, as in the articulatory suppression condition, the phonological similarity effect is eliminated because the rehearsal process which normally combats the decay of information is prevented. This emphasizes the active nature of the phonological loop, and not simply its capacity.

4. Supporting Evidence for the WMM's Modularity: The findings support the WMM's claim of separate, independent components. The articulatory suppression task specifically impaired the phonological loop without affecting other components of working memory (like the visuospatial sketchpad or central executive). This demonstrates the modularity of the WMM and how the different components interact independently.

5. Limitations of the Phonological Store: The study also reveals the limitations of the phonological store's capacity. Even without articulatory suppression, the phonological similarity effect demonstrates that similar-sounding items compete for space and processing within the store, leading to decreased recall accuracy.

Further Implications and Considerations

Landry and Bartling's study, interpreted through the lens of the WMM, provides valuable insights into several aspects of cognitive psychology:

• The Importance of Rehearsal: The study strongly emphasizes the importance of rehearsal in maintaining verbal information in working memory. The ACP's function is critical in preventing the rapid decay of information from the phonological store.

• The Capacity Limitations of Working Memory: The experiment highlights the limited capacity of the phonological store. Interference between similar-sounding items demonstrates the constraints of this component.

• Individual Differences: While the study demonstrates a clear effect of articulatory suppression, individual differences in working memory capacity might influence the magnitude of the effect. Some individuals may have a more efficient ACP, allowing them to partially overcome the suppression task.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

• Q: Does this study completely disprove other models of short-term memory?

  • A: No. While the WMM provides a comprehensive explanation of these results, other models of working memory exist, and this study doesn't invalidate them entirely. The WMM’s strength lies in its detailed account of the processes involved.

• Q: Can articulatory suppression completely eliminate all verbal working memory?

  • A: No. Articulatory suppression primarily affects the phonological loop's ability to rehearse and maintain phonological information. Other components of working memory, like the central executive, remain functional, allowing for some level of verbal processing.

• Q: Are there any limitations to Landry and Bartling's methodology?

  • A: Yes, like any study, there are limitations. The use of a specific articulatory suppression task might not generalize perfectly to all situations. Also, the sample size and participant characteristics might influence the results.

Conclusion

Landry and Bartling's (2011) study, when analyzed through the framework of the Working Memory Model, offers compelling evidence for the model's validity and usefulness. The results powerfully demonstrate the role of the phonological loop and the articulatory control process in verbal working memory. The study’s success in demonstrating the phonological similarity effect and its subsequent elimination through articulatory suppression provides strong support for the modularity of working memory and the limitations of its components. This research contributes significantly to our understanding of how we process and retain verbal information, and its implications extend to various fields, including education, language learning, and cognitive rehabilitation. By understanding the mechanisms of working memory, we can develop more effective strategies for improving memory and cognitive performance. The interplay between the phonological store and the articulatory control process, as highlighted by this study, is fundamental to our understanding of how the human mind manages information in the short-term.