How do subvocal rehearsal and general attentional resources contribute to verbal short-term memory span?

Sergio Morra
Author Information
  1. Sergio Morra: Department of Education, Università di Genova Genova, Italy.

Abstract

Whether rehearsal has a causal role in verbal STM has been controversial in the literature. Recent theories of working memory emphasize a role of attentional resources, but leave unclear how they contribute to verbal STM. Two experiments (with 49 and 102 adult participants, respectively) followed up previous studies with children, aiming to clarify the contributions of attentional capacity and rehearsal to verbal STM. Word length and presentation modality were manipulated. Experiment 1 focused on order errors, Experiment 2 on predicting individual differences in span from attentional capacity and articulation rate. Structural equation modeling showed clearly a major role of attentional capacity as a predictor of verbal STM span; but was inconclusive on whether rehearsal efficiency is an additional cause or a consequence of verbal STM. The effects of word length and modality on STM were replicated; a significant interaction was also found, showing a larger modality effect for long than short words, which replicates a previous finding on children. Item errors occurred more often with long words and correlated negatively with articulation rate. This set of findings seems to point to a role of rehearsal in maintaining item information. The probability of order errors per position increased linearly with list length. A revised version of a neo-Piagetian model was fit to the data of Experiment 2. That model was based on two parameters: attentional capacity (independently measured) and a free parameter representing loss of partly-activated information. The model could partly account for the results, but underestimated STM performance of the participants with smaller attentional capacity. It is concluded that modeling of verbal STM should consider individual and developmental differences in attentional capacity, rehearsal rate, and (perhaps) order representation.

Keywords

References

  1. J Exp Child Psychol. 2000 Mar;75(3):191-227 [PMID: 10666325]
  2. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004 Jun;133(2):189-217 [PMID: 15149250]
  3. J Exp Child Psychol. 2009 Oct;104(2):156-78 [PMID: 19515382]
  4. Br J Psychol. 1964 Nov;55:429-32 [PMID: 14237884]
  5. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Nov 1;4(11):417-423 [PMID: 11058819]
  6. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Sep;62(9):1843-58 [PMID: 19180362]
  7. Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Feb;24(1):87-114; discussion 114-85 [PMID: 11515286]
  8. Dev Sci. 2015 Jan;18(1):132-45 [PMID: 24942111]
  9. Psychol Rev. 2008 Jul;115(3):544-76 [PMID: 18729591]
  10. J Exp Child Psychol. 1982 Dec;34(3):387-413 [PMID: 7153702]
  11. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2015;68(4):759-78 [PMID: 25231876]
  12. Psychol Bull. 2005 May;131(3):323-39 [PMID: 15869331]
  13. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Oct;15(5):875-88 [PMID: 18926980]
  14. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2009 Nov;132(3):250-8 [PMID: 19683218]
  15. Mem Cognit. 1996 May;24(3):305-21 [PMID: 8718765]
  16. PLoS One. 2013 Jul 24;8(7):e70026 [PMID: 23894580]
  17. Child Dev. 2006 Nov-Dec;77(6):1822-41 [PMID: 17107463]
  18. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993 Sep;19(5):1101-14 [PMID: 8409850]
  19. Cogn Psychol. 2000 Aug;41(1):49-100 [PMID: 10945922]
  20. Psychol Rev. 2000 Jan;107(1):127-81 [PMID: 10687405]
  21. Cereb Cortex. 2016 Jan;26(1):166-79 [PMID: 25146374]
  22. Psychol Sci. 2013 Sep;24(9):1854-9 [PMID: 23863755]
  23. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007 Nov;136(4):663-84 [PMID: 17999578]
  24. Mem Cognit. 1989 Jul;17(4):398-422 [PMID: 2668697]
  25. Dev Psychol. 2009 Mar;45(2):477-90 [PMID: 19271832]
  26. Psychol Rev. 1998 Oct;105(4):761-81 [PMID: 9830378]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0attentionalverbalSTMcapacityrehearsalmemoryroleordererrorslengthmodalityExperimentratemodelshort-termworkingresourcescontributeparticipantspreviouschildren2individualdifferencesspanarticulationmodelinglongwordsinformationneo-PiagetianmodelsWhethercausalcontroversialliteratureRecenttheoriesemphasizeleaveunclearTwoexperiments49102adultrespectivelyfollowedstudiesaimingclarifycontributionsWordpresentationmanipulated1focusedpredictingStructuralequationshowedclearlymajorpredictorinconclusivewhetherefficiencyadditionalcauseconsequenceeffectswordreplicatedsignificantinteractionalsofoundshowinglargereffectshortreplicatesfindingItemoccurredoftencorrelatednegativelysetfindingsseemspointmaintainingitemprobabilityperpositionincreasedlinearlylistrevisedversionfitdatabasedtwoparameters:independentlymeasuredfreeparameterrepresentinglosspartly-activatedpartlyaccountresultsunderestimatedperformancesmallerconcludedconsiderdevelopmentalperhapsrepresentationsubvocalgeneralspan?M

Similar Articles

Cited By