Talk:Baddeley's model of working memory

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is there an update to reference 18 in the paper? There should be more recent fMRI data on this assertion. thanks, Ken

Shouldn't Baddeley and Hitch be two seperate links (ie, Baddeley and Hitch) as they are two seperate people?

Since there is more than one model of working memory, this page shouldn't be called Working Memory Model. It should be either called Baddley's Model of Working Memory or Multiple Components Model of working memory (both names are used in the literature). If no one has objections i'll move it. WU03 22:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page should be called "Baddeley's model of working memory". If you change the name, please see to it that you don't misspell Baddeley's name! Lova Falk 12:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you all can see, I was bold and changed the name of the page myself. :) This is not just a general model, it is Baddeley's model. Lova Falk 14:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I agree that it is more accurate with the new name. Though I sometimes refer to it as Baddeley and Hitch's model.. I suppose Baddeley is the name more consistently associated with it though, and I've only read a couple of the papers, so I don't know how much either of them contributed. digfarenough (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The model started as Baddeley and Hitch' model, but when you look at "Sources", it's quite clear that Baddeley continued without Hitch. Lova Falk 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody have an opinion on this? Lova Falk 16:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since both articles are pretty short, I can't think of any obvious reason against merging them into this article and making them redirect here. So sounds ok to me. digfarenough (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! :) However, while working with the merging, it became quite clear to me that the article needs more editing. But I'm tired now. Lova Falk 14:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very well-written article, showing the concepts clearly. My concern is whether it is accessible to a general reader of a general encyclopedia. I'll do a little bit of playing with it now to see if at least a few things can be "translated" into more accessible language. I've shifted the references to include full names of the journals too since general readers won't know the abbreviations -- there's only one that I didn't know right off (an O.J..... -- Ontario Journal? ), so I left a ?? with it. I'll do a little thinking about the issue of readability in general and come back with some possibilities. Wouldn't it be exciting to be able to use the key terminology, but have the concepts explained in such a way that people with an average vocabulary could understand?

It's actually the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology--someone mistyped the Q as an O. I fixed that and also fixed the Logie reference that was half missing (it was a book, not an article, which may have confused you if you tried to look it up). I support your continuing work on this, for what that's worth :) digfarenough (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a point referred to in the articles cited, but not really talked about. If someone could add something about this, something along the lines of...

"articulatory suppression: interference with operation of the phonological loop that occurs when a person repeats an irrelevant word such as "the" as they are carrying out a task that requires the phonological loop.

has three effects:

- it reduces the memory span because speaking interferes with rehearsal - it eliminates the word-length effect - it reduces the phonological similarity effect for reading words"

This is taken from Cognitive Psychology by Goldstein (full reference is on the article "release from proactive interference), but citing the articles by Baddeley should be enough.

Mainly.generic 06:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is curious that the modal (two store) model has a criticism section but this model does not. That suggests some bias. This model has problems, not the least of which is the "executive control" cloud which raises more issue than it explains. I also suggest that this is not a low priority page as such models are the entire scientific basis of so-called "cognitive" psychology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between diagram of Wikipedia's and Baddeley's diagram of working memory. Episodic buffer is connected to long term memory (LTM) in Baddeley's diagram, but in Wikipedia's diagram it is connected to short term memory. please see Baddeley's diagram and correct it. http://people.usd.edu/~schieber/psyc792/workload/Baddeley2012.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.146.70 (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to add a section on the word length effect here? I think it's a robust finding which would allow

• A more specific redirect than the current word-length effect to working memory
• A link from Alan Baddeley
• An additional item in List of psychological effects

As long as you add it with high quality secondary sources it will be great.--Garrondo (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baddeley's model of working memory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720114730/http://dionysus.psych.wisc.edu/Lit/Articles/BaddeleyA1996a.pdf to http://dionysus.psych.wisc.edu/Lit/Articles/BaddeleyA1996a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• A revised model of working memory.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Phonological Loop section references "silent articulation". Is this the same thing as Subvocalization? I was thinking of linkifying it but wasn't sure it's the same thing. tsilb (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]