Talk:Working memory

Psychology C‑class High‑importance

	Psychology portal 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
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

	Medicine portal 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
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 is/is not short-term memory

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]

The following article talks about the difference -
On the Division of Short-Term and Working Memory: An Examination of Simple and Complex Span and Their Relation to Higher Order Abilities - Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association - Nash Unsworth & Randall W. Engle

http://www.psychology.gatech.edu/renglelab/Publications/2007/Uns&Eng_2007_PsychBull.pdf
--BrianFennell (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely misleading; it is true that some researchers whose primary field of study is neither short-term memory nor working memory use these two terms interchangeably, however these terms refer to two different notions and two different research objectives. Some may argue that working memory replaces the old concept of short-term memory. This is not completely true as working memory has emerged from short-term memory theories with an emphasis on control processes which allow keeping the content of storage relevant to the task in hand. Working memory is often described as the interplay of a temporary storage (which is not equal to short-term memory) and control processes. In Baddeley's model temporary storage is indeed a short-term memory while other models assume different mechanisms for temporary storage (e.g. activation of long-term representations). Also as a research objective short-term memory can be and should be distinguished from working memory as the goal of short-term memory research is examining general representational features of information. This topic is of interest to the perception community.

--Nick.ferzuch (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baddeley sometimes uses the label "short term memory" when referring to the contents of his "buffers". Working memory sort of conflates the concepts of storage and processing, which are treated more distinctly in modal memory model. So, the terms don't always refer to the same function, but the often do--especially when speaking of working memory capacity. As working memory and short term memory should not be thought of as structures, but as functions the distinction between the two depend on how they are measured. STM tends to be measured by just storage and recall tasks, WM is always measured including a processing task beyond just storage. In the introductions, saying the terms often refer to the same thing is correct, even though the concepts can be distinguished. Robotczar (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vandalizing

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

Spam link

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]

This needs a lot of work

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 also agree :

The entry equates working memory with Baddeley's model. Working memory should be defined with respect to its broades function in supporting goal-oriented behavior rather than specifications of one particular model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.ferzuch (talk • contribs) 07:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Tony

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)

recent rewrite

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]

reference question

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

Need for citation

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]

Link farm

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.

Learning about Working Memory

I hope you do not mind, but i may change some of the Ref links using one of the or more of the Wiki friendly reference generators. I used to be a regular WIKI editor but my disability which causes me to be dyslexic led to this activity to becoming too stressful. I am currently revising my Research paper collections, which included one about Dyslexia and Working Memory which I now intent to compliment with a new single Working Memory collection. If become a nuisance please let me know dolfrog (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Development section

I am concerned about this diff, which appears to describe a rather obscure line of research in more depth than is appropriate for this article, and also is a bit of a conflict of interest. I am inclined to edit this down pretty severely; comments would be appreciated. Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The work admittedly demonstrates potential conflict of interest; however, I think it is a useful addition since the said research is peer reviewed. I have edited the section and moved it closer to the beginning in the meantime.—αrgumziω ϝ 02:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Mention of Cogmed

I just edited this article to remove mention of Cogmed. It is true that Torkel has done research as mentioned in the article, but to mention only this program serves as advertising. There are many digital products which help people improve working memory. This page should not be an advertisement for this one program or point people only in that direction. -Don —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prairieon (talk • contribs) 11:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

I have posted a bibliography of Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

The first sentence (and more generally first paragraph) in lead is confusing. Here are some definitions that should be included. I have used them to rewrite the lead.

Working memory is the ability to actively hold information in the mind. Lisman J. (2010). Working memory: the importance of theta and gamma oscillations. Curr Biol. 20(11):R490-2. PMID 20541499

Working memory refers to the system or systems that are assumed to be necessary in order to keep things in mind while performing complex tasks such as reasoning, comprehension and learning. Baddeley A. (2010). Working memory. Curr Biol. 20(4):R136-40. PMID 20178752

Working memory (WM) refers to the structures and processes used for temporarily storing and manipulating information in the face of ongoing processing and distraction. Jaeggi SM, Buschkuehl M, Perrig WJ, Meier B. (2010). The concurrent validity of the N-back task as a working memory measure. Memory. 18(4):394-412. PMID 20408039

Working memory allows information from transient events to persist as active neural representations that can be used for goal-directed behaviors such as decision making and learning. Fuentemilla L, Penny WD, Cashdollar N, Bunzeck N, Düzel E. (2010). Theta-coupled periodic replay in working memory. Curr Biol. 20(7):606-12. PMID 20303266

Working memory can be defined as the ability to hold in mind information in the face of potentially interfering distraction in order to guide behavior. ... short-term memory refers to an individual’s ability to store or maintain information over a limited time period, while working memory refers to the ability to hold information in mind while manipulating, and integrating other information in the service of some cognitive goal. Jarrold C, Towse JN. (2006). Individual differences in working memory. Neuroscience. 139(1):39-50. PMID 16325344

Working memory refers to the retention of information in conscious awareness when this information is not present in the environment, to its manipulation, and to its use in guiding behavior. Postle BR. (2006). Working memory as an emergent property of the mind and brain. Neuroscience. 139(1):23-38. PMID 16324795

Working memory (WM) describes a cognitive system which allows for the transient (up to a fewseconds) storage and utilization of information. Sauseng P, Griesmayr B, Freunberger R, Klimesch W. (2010). Control mechanisms in working memory: a possible function of EEG theta oscillations. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 34(7):1015-22. PMID 20006645

Working memory tasks require an organism to keep acute, trial specifi c information online, while simultaneously maintaining longer-term, consistent information about the nature of the task (including the rules, timing and environment of the task). Hyman JM, Zilli EA, Paley AM, Hasselmo ME. (2010). Working Memory Performance Correlates with Prefrontal-Hippocampal Theta Interactions but not with Prefrontal Neuron Firing Rates. Front Integr Neurosci. Mar 10;4:2. PMID 20431726 --LittleHow (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that the previous version was "confusing" (save for requiring knowledge on part of the reader, but that isn't a real problem); however, now that you've pointed to some verbiage in the literature, I think this is an excellent opportunity to cite them in the lead paragraph. LittleHow, could you insert (some of) those you've listed here as references (using the <ref></ref> tags)? I would do it, but I'm currently short on time. Your work is appreciated!—αrgumziΩ^ϝ 15:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working memory vs. Short-term memory

Working memory vs. Short-term memory There is no consistency in the information provided in these 2 articles Quoting article «Working memory»: «What we now call working memory was referred to as a "short-term store" or short-term memory, primary memory, immediate memory, operant memory, or provisional memory.[5] Short-term memory is the ability to remember information over a brief period of time (in the order of seconds). Most theorists today use the concept of working memory to replace or include the older concept of short-term memory, thereby marking a stronger emphasis on the notion of manipulation of information instead of passive maintenance.»

Quoting article «Short-term memory»: «Short-term memory (STM) (or "primary" or "active memory") is the capacity for holding a small amount of information in mind in an active, readily available state for a short period of time. The duration of short-term memory (when rehearsal or active maintenance is prevented) is believed to be in the order of seconds. Estimates of short-term memory capacity are 7 plus or minus 2 units, depending upon the experimental design used to estimate capacity. A commonly-cited capacity is 7±2 elements. In contrast, long-term memory indefinitely stores a seemingly unlimited amount of information. Short-term memory should be distinguished from working memory which refers to structures and processes used for temporarily storing and manipulating information (see more details below).» 89.180.22.209 (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The literature on these concepts is itself pretty fuzzy. It would take something of an expert to get this straight, I'm afraid. Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

This issue has been raised previously on both talk pages (see right above this section). I believe that Short-term memory should be merged to Working memory. They refer as far as I know to the same thing; there may appear to be differences because different researchers have used different terms, and they have probably been in vogue in different times, but I have never heard of anyone using both, with any sort of meaningful distinction between them.

Looking at two relatively recent undergraduate psychology textbooks, Gleitman et al. (2004) Psychology (6th edition), and Passer et al. (2009) Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour, both of them mention both terms and use them as synonyms. Working memory, by far the most developed of these two articles, also use them as synonyms. Short-term memory claims that there is a distinction, but fails to cite sources for it (or explain it in a way that I understand, but that might be my problem).

I suggest that they be merged into Working memory, as that seems to be the currently most widely-used term.

If anyone disagrees with this proposal, I urge them to cite evidence of a meaningful distinction between both terms, or at least some form of literature that makes the distinction. In the absence of such evidence I think it is clear that this should be a single article. EldKatt (Talk) 16:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is technically a distinction. Working memory is a form of memory that holds information only for as long as it has behavioral relevance. Short-term memory holds memory for a short time, regardless of whether it is useful. If the two are merged (which strikes me as a reasonable idea), the merged article should probably be short-term memory, because all working memory is short-term, but not everything in short-term memory necessarily has behavioral relevance -- in other words, short-term memory is a more inclusive concept. Looie496 (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STM capacity is a function of the decay and refresh rates of memory traces and hence the number of traces available to contemplate. This and the number of these elements one is able to attend to at once determine working memory capacity.

Imagine you are filming ice cubes being placed one by one onto a hotplate. The cooler the hotplate, the longer the cubes last and the more cubes there are to film. But if your lens has a narrow field of view, no matter how many cubes are lingering on the hotplate, you can only scope a few at a time. In this analogy, (1) the the hotplate and the ice cubes on it represent STM, (2) the angle of the lens represents attention span and (3) the hotplate and visible ice cubes represent WM.

That's my metaphor. Derived from

"Cowan (1988, 1995) argued for a system limited in capacity in two ways. One, with Hebb's (1949) ideas as its foundation, is based on the decay rate and rehearsal rate. This effectively limits the number of traces active above threshold at a given time. The second limitation, based on James' (1890) ideas, is in capacity for controlled and focussed attention. There is a rather severe limit in the number of memory elements that can be attended to at one time. We argued above that WM tasks reflect both limitations, but that tasks typically thought of as reflecting STM primarily reflect the former." P. 326

Engle RW, Tuholski SW, Laughlin JE, Conway AR (September 1999). "Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach". J Exp Psychol Gen 128 (3): 309–31. PMID 10513398.

I don't know if there should be one or two articles. Anthony (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems, then, that at least some people think that there are two (to some extent) separate systems.

One important point I'd like to make, though, is that we cannot, by any means, and should not strive to reach a conclusion about how it actually is -- if they are separate or not. You can probably find support in the literature for both views. Our task should be to figure out how to best represent the scientific discussion, and the consensus or lack thereof. But we should keep reminding ourselves that nobody actually knows whether there are really two systems or one. EldKatt (Talk) 15:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree with the hotplate metaphor, I think there should not be a merger. Short term memory refers to information that strikes the sensory register - some of which is selected and "held" by working memory; working memory refers to the short term memory process as well as a theoretically (at least) distinct process of holding and manipulation. Therefore, at the level of information short term memory is "more inclusive" whereas at the level of mental processes, WM is more inclusive. According to a footnote contained on p. 889 of Olson IR, Jiang Y, and Moore KS (2005), there is a non-trivial distinction: "The terms visual short-term memory and visual working memory connote different things, with short-term memory emphasizing the storage aspect of memory and working memory emphasizing both the storage and the manipulation of information held in memory". The hotplate metaphor above is compatible with this view but incomplete (according to this view) since it is important to note that the "visible" ice cubes can be "held" and "manipulated" (i.e., in a backwards digit span or active visual-spatial working memory task). 209.121.53.123 (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olson IR, Jiang Y, and Moore KS (2005). "Associative Learning Improves Visual Working Memory Performance" Journal of Experimental Psychology 31(5) 889–900. PMID:16262486

Interesting. But I guess seeing/being conscious of, is a prerequisite for effective manipulation. Anyway, whether any of these faculties "actually" exist, we won't know for a while. But they are solid and distinct theoretical constructs, and probably enough can be said about each to warrant its own article. Anthony (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking off the merge templates now. This seems to be the consensus of the discussion above, and I agree with it. There may indeed be enough to say about each.

Some work needs to be done, though, to make sure that the distinction is upheld and clarified throughout both articles. Particularly (actually mainly) short-term memory is in need of overhaul. Much (but not all) of it is written from the assumption that the terms are interchangeable, which is obviously inappropriate (even though they are occasionally used as such).

From that purely practical point of view, I still suspect that we might benefit from a merge (this was in fact part of what motivated me to suggest it): This article is far more developed than the other one, and it might be a more welcoming prospect for contributors to incorporate new material into an already successful article (while still upholding the distinction, just to be clear) than to build a new one from shaky foundations. It might also be easier to structure the information, to the extent that there is overlap between what would need to be covered in both articles. I don't know if these are good reasons, though. EldKatt (Talk) 15:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am late to the party. The following article talks about the differences (in fact, while they might be the same, there is still published work making distinctions, until there is a consensus terming them as identical is misleading about the lack of consensus) -
On the Division of Short-Term and Working Memory: An Examination of Simple and Complex Span and Their Relation to Higher Order Abilities - Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association - Nash Unsworth & Randall W. Engle

http://www.psychology.gatech.edu/renglelab/Publications/2007/Uns&Eng_2007_PsychBull.pdf
--BrianFennell (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd suggestion

The suggestion that "working memory" and "short-term" memory be merged is too absurd to be seriously considered. Just because some laypersons don't understand the distinction (though they should be self-evident from even a rudimentary reading of their respective Wikipedia articles), is not a justification for the suggestion. Were they merged, I would be arguing for disambiguation. However, they are currently distinct and I don't think the people at Wikipedia are ill-guided enough to mistakenly merge the two.

Before making crazy suggestions about merging topics, read both topics. No cognitive psychology, neuropsychologist, neuroscientist, or any educated person would even consider this suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.131.215 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Note that there is a discussion about this in the section above this one, which you are free to contribute to. Other than that, I think cases like this exhibit one of the merits of Wikipedia's collaborative structure - that it is possible for someone who is not by any means an expert (such as myself) to raise a concern, which can then be addressed by people who are more knowledgeable. In this case, as you can see above, there seems to be a rather clear consensus against the merge that you are protesting, so the system appears to be working.

If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia in any significant way I suggest that you create an account. If nothing else, because it makes communication easier: I might as well have ignored your comment, not because of its aggressive tone but merely because I have no reason to believe that an anonymous user with a single edit would ever return to see a reply. EldKatt (Talk) 15:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EldKatt, I am coming at this from a different perspective. Peter J. Denning formulated the concepts of the Working Set and the Balance Set, which are practical ways for computers to deal with objects in memory. That is what I trigger on when I think of Working memory. It is definitely not the same as Short term memory. You are welcome to google this to learn more about a topic in CS. Thus I would vote against a merge; it would confuse separate concepts. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell how to improve working memory

I have read enough research to discuss how/why, but where is the how to IMPROVE section?? I am a special education teacher of a child with severe processing speed/working memory delays. I just want some examples of how to help him be successful!! POST SOME SUGGESTIONS PLEASE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyriss (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section of the article entitled Training has some suggestions. This review from 2010 is free online. It criticizes studies claiming to show improvement in working memory capacity; and concludes that because of the poor quality of study design up to now, it is not possible to be confident that any of the training regimes actually improve working memory capacity, rather than just improving skill in the test task. Anthony (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck... it's a waterfowl. I actually have undergone working memory training and I was able to improve on the tasks tested. While I agree that I may have been learning a skill, I also clearly saw that the training improved my performance on the tested skills which are very similar to the usual measure of working memory. This also firmly convinced me of another fact: that my invisible handicap was subject to improvement with effort and practice and time. If someone is asking how to improve working memory an abstract statement that "you might not really be improving working memory, but just improving doing the things you can do with working memory" I think it may be a distinction that is of academic interest only. To most people it is close enough to solve the problem at hand. Studies do suggest that the improvement in the tests is reflected also in an improvement in other, real world tasks that also are typically associate with working memory: which to most people is the point. It is a bit like saying "it won't repair your deafness, but you will be able to hear" to most people that is the point and quite good enough. --BrianFennell (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the improvement holds only for the task trained on, or generalizes to other tasks. If it doesn't generalize, it isn't very useful. Looie496 (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review is more optimistic about the results of training. Also, pain, nutrient deprivation, sleep deprivation, thirst, hormone imbalance, medical illness and stress all impact WM. I don't think WM has been tested in acute hunger, nausea, itch or core muscle fatigue but would be surprised if they didn't have an impact, considering how they hijack attention. Fixing any of these should improve WM. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If evidence exists that working memory can be improved, it should be cited. I will caution that this is sensitive issue because of companies tying to sell exercises to improve cognitive abilities. The fact that people can be taught to perform better on measures of working memory does not necessarily mean that their working memory capacity increased. (As mentioned, people learned a how to perform a specific task better--the task is not working memory.) Better evidence comes from the lack of generalized improvement on other tasks related to working memory measurement. We have little reason to think that basic cognitive abilities can be improved via learning. The idea is similar to thinking we can improve fluid intelligence or even IQ via learning. You can improve your performance on specific types of IQ test items, but that doesn't mean your IQ improved--you are just a better IQ test taker. Citing things that can degrade working memory or IQ (like taking a bullet in the brain) in no way support the idea that it can be improved. Perhaps the page should simply say that some controversy exists about whether WM can be improved by practice or learning and cite some source as that seems to lend credibility on WP.Robotczar (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

recent study published on June 20th, 2011

Coverage of a recent study done can be found at: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331666/title/Brain_has_two_slots_for_working_memory Dream Focus 08:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response about citation confusion

Sorry about taking so long! (Got backlogged and didn't see your message.) Example of confusion: "Baddeley and Hitch (1974)[8]" - seems to use two different method at once. "Baddeley and Hitch (1974)", one type of reference makes the footnote [8] unnecessary - i.e. the (1974) can be removed. Another example: Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)[4]. What does (1968) add? It's not as if either set of authors have multiple entries under that year. This is what I was taught - other countries/universities may vary in citing systems. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. I could see how my message could get lost among all colorful best wishes.

Lova Falk talk 14:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I revisited your concerns, and actually I think the years mentioned in "Baddeley and Hitch (1974)[10]" and "Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)[4]" were not so much part of a citing system as historical information, like it was in 1974 when Baddeley and Hitch.... So I fixed a couple of those. Lova Falk talk 08:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal is a new, open-access, "peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original empirical and theoretical articles, state-of-the-art articles and critical reviews, case studies, original short notes, commentaries" intended to be "an open access journal that moves forward the study of human intelligence: the basis and development of intelligence, its nature in terms of structure and processes, and its correlates and consequences, also including the measurement and modeling of intelligence." The content of the first issue is posted, and includes interesting review articles, one by Earl Hunt and Susanne M. Jaeggi and one by Wendy Johnson. The editorial board[1] of this new journal should be able to draw in a steady stream of good article submissions. It looks like the journal aims to continue to publish review articles of the kind that would meet Wikipedia guidelines for articles on medical topics, an appropriate source guideline to apply to Wikipedia articles about intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal website has just been updated with the new articles for the latest edition of the journal, by eminent scholars on human intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]