Major Findings and Conclusions
Psychologists have proposed different models that explain ‘interference and short-term retention’ in human working memory. The article presents a study that sought to investigate the effects of different secondary tasks on short-term memory. The researchers tested different states arising from the Changing-State Hypothesis and the Working-Memory Models. The comparative study indicated that the Working-Memory Model was effective because it presented a better account for the implications of secondary tasks. This makes it effective than the O-OER model. The O-OER model is used to describe the Changing-State Hypothesis. The O-OER model offers a detailed explanation of the implications of disruptive aspects of non-speech and irrelevant sounds. The Working-Memory Model usually assumes that the changing-state tasks will impose “heavy loads on human resources” compared to “steady-state tasks” (Page & Norris, 1998).
The researchers observed that crossover dissociations were evident between verbal and spatial serial short-term memories (Meiser & Klauer, 1999). From such findings, the researchers concluded by stating that the Working-Memory Model presents better explanations and arguments for interference during short-term cognition and memory. According to Meiser and Klauer (1999), resources for separate Working-Memory and verbal information corroborate through functional dissociations. However, there is need to consider that the serial-order retention is usually underspecified within the Working-Memory Model (Meiser & Klauer, 1999). In summary, the findings extended the ideas of Jones et al. (1995) thus supporting the Working-Memory Model for interference in human short-term memory.
Implications for the Field of Psychology
The findings from this study are applicable in the field of psychology. To begin with, the findings support the use of the Working-Memory Model because it offers a clear distinction between the subordinate memory systems and the “central executive” memory (Meiser & Klauer, 1999). The reason for this is that interference effects can be accurately explained using “overload of the central executive and its subsystems”. In the recent past, scholars and psychologists have challenged the Working-Memory Model thus making it inadequate. However, psychologists can use the model because it is effective.
As well, the findings are important because they help readers and psychologists understand the applications of the Working-Memory Model in comparison with other models (Meiser & Klauer, 1999). The findings also clarify that the current model does not predict whether “interference occurring during the encoding process” disrupts memory items, serial order, or both. That being the case, psychologists can rely on these findings to support the practices and under working memory. The article explains new ideas and knowledge that can help psychologists support their patients and improve their memories. The findings also provide psychologists with the best ideas for the working memory.
Method/Participants
The researchers used several experiments to complete the study. The first experiment involved 40 students from different departments. The experiments investigated the nature of interference during the retention and encoding phase. “This was achieved using computerized Corsi-blocks tasks (Meiser & Klauer, 1999)”. The second experiment examined the retention of individual during a verbal memory task and effects of interference during the primary encoding phase. The third experiment was a construction of an arithmetic task using irregular shifts of “mental operation.”
The fourth experiment compared the central-executive load and the changing-state tasks or secondary changing-state tasks (Meiser & Klauer, 1999). The participants were mainly college students from various departments. The researchers used ANOVA to test the hypotheses thus coming up with the best findings and discussions (Cohen, 1988). The results explained that the Working-Memory Model was effective because it offered the best accounts for the specific effects of ‘active secondary tasks’ (Baddeley, 1997). The use of such study methods, participants and analyses tools made it possible to come up with meaningful and conclusive results.
Strengths and Limitations of the Study
The reader observes several strengths from the study. For instance, the research methods are carefully designed thus making it easier to come up with the best ideas and findings. The experiments are presently in a coherent and logic manner thus being able to examine the implications of different models (Meiser & Klauer, 1999). Personally, I believe this is a major strength because the authors have successfully presented new ideas and concepts to the reader. As well, the authors have used a clearly defined literature review. The literature review borrows from different materials thus providing the reader with adequate background information. The discussions from the findings help the reader understand the subject matter much better.
On the other hand, the authors only discuss the effectiveness of the Working-Memory Model without describing its applications. The authors also identify some of the weaknesses and shortcoming of the specific models without necessary examining the existing gaps. This explains why future studies should address such gaps for better practice (Smyth & Scholey, 1994). The second weakness is that the authors fail to present some crucial information such as limitations of their study and recommendations for future research. However, despite such gaps and weaknesses, the study is meaningful because it presents new ideas and information that can be useful to scholars and psychologists today.
References
Baddeley, A. (1997). Human Memory: Theory and Practice. Hove: Psychology Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sconces. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Meiser, T. & Klauer, K. (1999). Working Memory and Changing-State Hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(5), 1272-1299.
Page, M. & Norris, D. (1998). The primacy model: A new model of immediate serial recall. Psychological Review, 105(1), 761-781.
Smyth, M. & Scholey, K. (1994). Interference in immediate spatial memory. Memory and Cognition, 22(1), 1-13.