Questions related to Working Memory
In order to have a general idea of my participants' cognitive level, I have calculated a composite score with the results of different tests (working memory, spatial attention, language, inhibition). Depending on the age of children, sometimes these variables do not correlate one with the other. Therefore, given this lack of correlation, do you think that it makes sense to calculate a composite scores involving all the variables ?
I'm looking for a working memory test administered to adults. I'm planning to administer a listening test to my participants and I need to measure their working memory capacity to be used as a covariant in the later statistical analysis. I'm wondering what kind of working memory test would be appropriate and where to find the test?
I am currently assisting a neuropsychology fellow with articles. She wants to know more about adults who did not receive an ADHD diagnosis in childhood. They do not qualify for an ADHD diagnosis. They have inattentiveness symptoms, but they do not have hyperactivity symptoms. They have high processing speed scores and low working memory scores. Further, they have high levels of intelligence. We do want to look at assessments. Again, they have high processing speed. Any suggestion for search terms. So far, I have used \
1. fast processing speed, assessments and ADHD
2. fast processing speed has been implicated in ADHD-C
3- Implications of Fast Processing Speed
Currently we are working on a review that surveys the cognitive/neural mechanisms of tactile working memory. We propose a sensory recruitment model, which suggests that prefrontal regions interact with somatosensory cortex to encode, maintain and retrieve tactile working memory. Please leave your email address if of interests.
I am working on a patient group that has mood and affect related changes. I want to know if there is a paradigm (cognitive task) that can see the effect of mood or affect on working memory performance?
Digging into human visual working memory tasks, I did not find a consistency in the exposure of the encoding time to the sample stimuli. A consistency should help in comparing different tasks' performances. What did make the exposure time so different between tasks?
My friend is looking for coauthors in Psychology & Cognitive Neuroscience field. Basically you will be responsible for paraphrazing, creating figures, and collecting references for a variety of publications. Please leave your email address if you are interested. 10 hours a week is required as there is a lot of projects to be done!
My master's thesis topic is on the benefits of oral interactions after shared reading sessions for the development of both language skills and the understanding of narratives, which contributes to better reading skills in the short and in the long term. My view is that it might be too demanding to expect from four and five-year-olds to be able to remember the key elements of a story, concentrate on the teacher's questions/feedbacks and make well-structured sentences all at the same time. It might be more efficient to dedicate specific sessions to teach language, and if books can be used to do so, then they shouldn't be chosen among children literature which is often far too complex for that. I would highly appreciate to know the opinions of people who are more expert than I am on this topic.
Recent studies of children's tool innovation have revealed that there is variation in children's success in middle-childhood. In two individual differences studies, we sought to identify personal characteristics that might predict success on an innovation task. In Study 1, we found that although measures of divergent thinking were related to each other they did not predict innovation success. In Study 2, we measured executive functioning including: inhibition, working memory, attentional flexibility and ill-structured problem-solving. None of these measures predicted innovation, but, innovation was predicted by children's performance on a receptive vocabulary scale that may function as a proxy for general intelligence. We did not find evidence that children's innovation was predicted by specific personal characteristics.
More specifically, I am trying to image the three phases of a Sternberg Item Recognition working memory paradigm (encoding, maintenance, and retrieval) using an event-related design for M/EEG. The total active period may extend up to 8500 ms (in an experiment with a maximum of 5 memory set items shown sequentially for 1000 ms, with a 3000 ms maintenance period, and a 500 ms test probe) and I am unsure how to define an objective baseline. There will be a ITI of 1100 ms. The three phases would be captured in these windows: encoding (0-5000 ms), maintenance (5000-8000 ms), and retrieval (8000-8500 ms), with 0 being defined as the onset of the first memory set item.
I am looking for a recommendation for a working memory task (n-back, visuospatial, ....) for an undergraduate project in my lab that can be run remotely online. With quarantine in place, we are not able to use our custom, in-person software. We had planned to compare working memory capacity among particular groups of interest, but, in the current scramble to finish this project before graduation and during quarantine, any basic working memory task would suffice as long as participants could access it online. We would vastly prefer a free version, with the plan to upgrade to a paid license if we need to continue this online format. Does any one have any suggestions? Thank you!
I am working on a meta-analysis about executive function in ADHD and I have found that some papers use different measures for the same outcome, for example, they report the mean and SD for Digit Span for working memory and in the same paper they also report the mean and SD for number and letters task for working memory too. My question is ¿How do I decide which measure to use for? or ¿How di I do to take into account both measures? Thanks for your help.
I've heard that people are most responsive to messages delivered at an 4th grade reading level.
If anyone has analyzed cognitive complexity scores at this level, have you found a mean complexity score equivalent?
I am not entirely sure where I'm going with this, but I am thinking I want to see how cognitive complexity theories fits into Hogg's uncertainty identity theory.
We want to do a study that test if the placement of your mobile phone effects your memory. If it being next to you, decreases your memory by disturbing your attention. So the phone will either be next to you on the table, in your pocket/bag or in another room.
Is it necessary to have multiple complex tasks, such as the operation span test and another one or is that one enough?
As we are quite short on time, studying long term memory is not possible.
Thank you for your answers.
I am currently testing for my undergraduate dissertation looking at TDCS . I was wondering if what was done/thought/spoken about during the stimulation would change the effect of the TDCS at all?
We are conducting a meta-analysis with a focus on single–session tDCS effects on working memory. If there is anyone who is willing to share their unpublished work or manuscript not yet appeared in the following databases: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, PsycARTICLES or CENTRAL, we would be happy to include it in our study. Also, research with data on WM measure following single–session tDCS (e.g. N –back), without that necessarily being a prime focus of a study, would be of great value for us. We would also like to include data from a PhD or master thesis, so please feel free to share it as well.
If you have any further questions, I am happy to answer.
It seems to me that a single working memory measure can not be used for all L2 projects using the same population. Sounds like one needs to take into consideration the cognitive load of the tasks used in a specific L2 project and accordingly use the most appropriate WM measure placing more or less the same memory demand in order to have reliable results, irrespective of whether there are significant or insignificant relationships between that memory measure and dependent variables. I think even if multiple memory measures are used in an L2 project, one still needs to care about the weight of dependent variable(s) used in that project first and then choose the right memory measure which could well match with those variables in tapping WM. I would much appreciate it if you share your experience and thought with me.
The study aims to find whether three types of depression (mild, moderate, severe) affects memory differently. Also, there will be a control group. Thus there are 4 groups.
There are three types of memory tests to assess three types of memory namely:
Long term memory
For each of these memory functions three different tests have been administered with each test yielding a single score that. Thus we have 3 different DVs corresponding to each memories i.e., long term memory, working memory, visual memory.
Coming to the hypothesis I have 3 hypothesis. Whereby predictions are made regarding performance of each group on these 3 measures. So:
H1: severe group will perform poorly in comparison to other groups on visual, working memory and long term memory measures.
H2: Moderate group will perform poorly in comparison to mild group and the control group on long term memory measure.
H3: Mild group will perform poorly in comparison to the control group on measure of working memory.
Now in such a situation should I go for
MANOVA or ANOVA?
I get pretty confused when people say that I should use ANOVA as each ANOVA will be testing each hypothesis and thus chances of rejecting a true null hypothesis will not be their.
PS: I am assuming that my data is following the basic assumptions required to conduct both of these tests.
I am looking for visual stimuli that produce a similar effect than the well know “Dalmatian dog illusion” (see Figure attached).
If you look briefly at the Dalmatian dog illusion for the first time, it looks like a pattern of meaningless black and white stains (left panel). However, once a priming cue is briefly presented (the red contour in the right panel) the representation of a Dalmatian dog in a field becomes apparent. Once “seen” this representation will remain apparent even after the priming cue is removed and can't be unseen (look at the left panel again without the red contour).
Do you know other types of visual stimuli containing a hidden object shape that never pops-out before and always pops-out after the transient presentation of a priming stimulus?
I am developing a project on the effect of working memory training on instrumental activities of daily living.
There is a pretest - training - Posttest phase
Both in the assessment phases I am using the same tests
It is a clinical trial
How can I reduce the chances of the Learning effect?
Is randomization already controlling this fact? or should I space both assessment periods for at least 6 months ?
The capacity of the working memory is commonly measured by asking participants to remember a list of items and then counting how many letters they can repeat.
I have noticed that for some L2 learners who have majored in English for more than 8 years, English words could be recalled more easily than their L1.
Thanks in advance for the response
Research suggests that both working memory capacity and language analytic ability explain individual differences in L2 learners' production of modified output. However, it is not clear which one has a greater effect size in explaining variations in producing modified output? I was just wondering if any colleagues could kindly advise me in this regard in case he/she has conducted a research on this?
I have data which is quiet complicated for me to analyze. I need an advice which statistical analysis I should use.
In my experiment, participants performed a working memory task in 3 different difficulty with 3 different stimulus type. Also half of the participants completed color version 1st and the other half completed color version 2nd.
Finally, I also measured their eating behavior with a scale. So I have 1 score for evey participants. First I wanted to use median split method to create dichotomous variable (such as high or low eaters) to make anaylsis easier for me but I figured out that it not the best method to use.
So my question is: which statistical analysis I should use?
My data is 3 x 3 x 2 and scale scores
3: task difficulty (within)
3: stimulus type (within)
2: color type (between)
Thanks in advance,
I am working on a project in which we need to study the working memory of mice before and after treatment. I have tried using the 8-arm radial maze but the mice are not at all interested in the food even after 4-5 hours starving and so I have been unsuccessful in training them. I tried using a modified 8-arm maze with an arm open because initially the mice wanted to escape and it worked for a while but the mice seemed to have learned that there is no reward on escaping. Could anyone suggest a method that works with all strains of mice?
(see one of my last, previous posts for the perspective on Psychology)(not really much translation involved, in the following):
The aspects of my perspective that are typically missing in AGI's (artificial general intelligence) ideas of "cumulative learning" [(see "Cumulative Learning", By Kristinn Thorrison et al )] include:
True Hierarchical learning -- which is more than a new category and a responses using and building on existing behaviors PATTERNS of otherwise of the same nature (as those used in the past). (Note the thinking always in PATTERNS -- it is thus that behavior patterns show detectable changes, which are the new behavior pattern itself AND by which behavior patterns are defined (as in classical ethology) -- i.e. DEFINED BY THE PATTERNING OF BEHAVIOR "SURROUNDING" THEM.) Then realize: True hierarchical learning ADDS new elements (in the behavior/response pattern), which shifts some key pattern(s) _AND_ which promote (IS) fuller sensing/perception of the key aspects of the situation(s) BY the Subject -- literally PERCEIVING NEW CONCRETE ELEMENT(s) (as indicated, AND these may be across several times and across several circumstances -- especially later in ontogeny; such is the power of SOME of our Memory systems; we simply must use "more imagination" here, both the Subjects and as researchers/theorists). The sub-elements (lower level elements OF the previous responses to "such" situations) may change in their nature as they are used differently (e.g. "tagged" or "typed"), or at least when associated with new-different circumstances; some may certainly be truncated or dropped out (think: new "chunking").
Foundations in PERCEPTION -- yes, THAT kind-of basic process. It is with/in perception (and later, attention FOLLOWING THAT) that provides for (IS) "new elements which promote full sensing/perception of the key aspects of the situation BY the Subject literally PERCEIVING NEW CONCRETE ELEMENTS [(or elements in a distinctly new context)]". Resolving that seeing SUCH new things and JUST THAT (see above), as the foundation of each new level of abstracting ability (i.e. abstraction) -- THAT is a major seemingly paradoxical set of "things" which simply must be resolved ("bucking" the philosophies of the past).
Ontogeny involves a new type of learning at each stage, unfolding in response to (or included in the response to) NEW elements of the concrete situations/circumstances (and, given the sophistication of some of our Memories: this can be across times and spaces.) Here, it is important to see/find TRUE ANALOGIES (not just "trumped up" analogies). These are doubtlessly useful in generalization to "other" circumstances -- seeing other situations similarly better by seeing MORE there "too". PLUS: We must get rid of the idea that "learning" is always the same type of thing IN ACTION; it changes qualitatively there, BY VIRTUE OF CONTENT, AND CHANGING RESPONSES TO THAT. Ironically, in my system , in another sense, all learning is the same in that it conforms to simple associative learning patterns-- that is all that is needed (or likely), given what else is going on. [ Of course, good integration, consolidation and generalization of earlier behavior patterns must occur before "moving on" from one stage-type ("level"-type) to the next. ]
Thus, the AGI machine must contingently, after previous developments and integration/consolidations/generalizations, SEE MORE) BASIC [(here meaning: additional)] ELEMENTS OF THE SITUATION. And, JUST THIS, provides for moving in-key-part(s) the whole system -- allowing more abstractions (things seen conventionally as "more abstract"), and THUS yielding more refined responses (whether they are specialized or not -- to some extent an open question -- BUT THEY ARE NEW w/r to the important sets of overt, express, explicit circumstances (AT LEAST clear at the inception of such a new sort of processing)). Likewise the BEHAVIOR PATTERNS, AT LEAST AT FIRST ARE ALSO overt, directly observable and clearly expressed. It is important to realize that although initially overt, directly observable and expressly and explicitly seen IN patterns of behavior, such overt-ness of direct, observable overt evidence of change may be short-lived, as the Memories change and incorporate the new (new type) of learning behavior (perhaps VERY quickly) (This is why, for humans, eye-tracking technology and associated technology (e.g analysis software) likely have to be used.)
Given the distinct limitations of short-term memory (I should say "working memory") and the LACK of limitations of other Memories (e.g. visual-spacial) make it understandable that small changes in response (including PERCEIVING) must be able to yield BIG changes in understanding; this is why this perspective and theory make sense (and ONLY something like it could make sense). AGI simply must figure out such ontogeny as I have described AND DO IT. In AI you have the great ability of trial-and-error, quickly and over-and-over, that allows for a fair amount of guessing (I would guess) -- and give the "locality" of the beginning of new patterns in behavior COULD (in theory, with a thoroughly educated view/approach) BE GUESSED AT. But none of this is possible without an appreciation for True Hierarchical Learning during ontogeny -- very, very likely occurring in qualitatively different stages. The machine must make ITS OWN analogies, and only such analogies are appropriate (as has been the case in science "forever" ).
Something very much like I propose (above) OR attempts at AGI (as is and has been the case with Psychology) can continue-on, basically the same way as they have been for decades -- i.e. no big progress (as is acknowledged, again and again in the AGI field).
Hi. In R l used the mixed-effects model and found a tsignificant hree-way interaction between working memory (as a continuous variable), syntactic position (subject position v.s. object position) and ambiguity type (ambiguous v.s. unambiguous). The dependent variable is reading time. Then I looked into the two way interaction between working memory and ambiguity type for each syntactic position but none of the tests reached significance. Does this mean the way I did the follow-up test was not right? Is there any other way to conduct a follow-up test for a three-way interaction in a design like this?
Thank you in advance.
I am trying to segregate different components of verbal working memory and visuospatial working memory.
In order to assess verbal working memory I am using an auditory version of n-back task with a load level from 1 to 2. The task requires the participant to respond when they here the same consonant repeatedly (1-back condition) or when they hear the same consonant at an interval of another consonant (2-back condition)
In order to assess visuopatial working memory I am using a spatial n-back task. The memory load ranges from 1 to 2. A set of cards are shown to the subjects sequentially, each card has a small back color dot on a white background. The position of the dot changes from card-to-card. The subject has to respond when they saw the dot appearing on the same location in comparison to the previous card (1-back condition) or after an interval of one card (2-back condition).
I am not sure whether it can segregate the components of verbal and visuospatial working memory.
Is there an article that might give me a clue as what component is tapped in the 1 n-back load level and 2 n-back load level?
Does anyone know from where can i have the online version of odd one out task as a measure of non-verbal working memory for kids (4-7)yrs to assist my research?.. Thank you
I am working a project that investigate the cognitive factors on reading comprehension process for second and third grade studenst. Hovewer, I couldn't decide how to measure working memory perfomance related to reading comprehension.
Isn't grounding all interactions (& our understanding of particular interaction) best done by better understanding the Memories AS (being) EXPERIENCE ITSELF? I see this as one of the 2 consistent common groundings for properly coming to an understanding of concepts we come to have as a being, and this includes the development of not just bare simple concepts, but even the development of contingent SETS of such concepts, AND it includes that which come of the developed and developing Memories which allows for abstract thinking -- abstract concepts and abstract processing. Let me elaborate on this first type of thing:
First, realize: By the definitions of the Memories (our basic types of memory, all rather well defined by EXISTING research already), there is no way not to see EXPERIENCE as the operation of the Memories themselves (and THAT is EXPERIENCE ITSELF, literally true BY THE DEFINITIONS in modern perspectives and research). AND, CONCEPTS MUST BE ALL BASED ON THIS. Thus as experiences "grow" and as application of our concepts (defined by interaction with environments: social and/or otherwise, linguistic and/or otherwise) become (to the extent that they can) more widely seen as relevant and applied, this simply occurs by way of the simple forms of associative learning (the definition of such FORMS something that can be well agreed on); NOTE: All this eventually will only suffice WITH the second set of required groundings "emerging" for prompting MAJOR developments in ontogeny (see below) -- those influencing attention and learnings A LOT. Yet simple associative learnings seem to partly work (for a lot of the more bit-by-bit development) given evidence OF the existence of concepts/representations/ways-of-looking in the first place (such as its there, at least at later levels of child development). _AND_ these very simple associative learnings are ALL that would needed at the major points in development, in addition to the base perceptual/attentional shifts (described below). In a sense, yet still, they will be THEN AND THERE all that's needed -- those simple learnings STILL being ALL of what's necessary to "put things together" even WHEN THE SECOND SET/TYPE OF MAJOR FACTOR IS FOUND AND SEEN (and as and when such shifts are occurring). Yet, so far (i.e. the above) would not provide a complete picture of human learning and development . AT BEST, the Memories as they are at any point and associative learnings are still just "half" the picture (as already has been indicated). BUT: What's the other "half", at least more specifically/functionally? :
These other major necessary factors are basically the capacities (or capacities within capacities, if you like) developing with very subtle innate guidances (which are not-unlikely and certainly possibly, at least for a time, quite situation-dependent); these, of course, leading to some of the most major developments of the Memories and HERE, of qualitatively new learnings (still combining with the "THE knowns" and with each other JUST THROUGH THE SIMPLE ASSOCIATIVE LEARNINGS). These innate guidances are at first just sensing more: THAT OF _THAT_ which is _THERE _IN_ any given concretely definable situation (where more adaptation is needed). This is reliant upon and given also the way our Memories have already developed (given our past learning, and earlier innate guidances, the products of which have become well-applied and consolidated (etc.) and all which yields "the time(s)" for some new types of learning) . And now (from the good processing and consolidation ; and discriminations here, perhaps just associative learning as dis-associations) giving us, in a sense, a new or greater capacity in working memory (through more efficient "chunks" and/or some situations-specific "trimming" of the old chunks, and both WITH CHANGES IN OUR _WAY_ OF CHUNKING (and realize: this may not preclude other adaptive reasons for an adaptive increase in the effective capacity of working memory (WM)). The details of the nature of the periodic innate guidances:
What is newly, or at least now truly sensed, sensed as "the-more": that is sensed (and at least glanced at, if not gazed-upon) in a situation or situations, will lead to new perception of at least something more in the scope of "what's there". This will rather quickly go to perceiving more and then to perceptual/attentional shifts (applying some of our past-developed categories and processing to the new "material" -- AND at such also-adaptive points offering more "material" to refine or moderate one's responses/interactions). Here, there will be more in WM , and thus provide more that can be "associated-with" via the simple forms of associative learnings (now, with some new content: new parts and likely new wholes). These developments might be quite situations-specific at least at first, but they may develop to be concepts of rather great scope -- observations and other research which may well be possible are the ONLY things that will clarify all this. All we can say is that this will be some sort of BASIC KEY species-typical cognitive developments (with their inceptions, as indicated) during ontogeny [(birth to 18 yr. old, minimally 5 MAJOR hierarchical levels or stages are historically seen (but with several modern theorists hypothesizing phases within each level); all this can be seen in the overviews of great classic theories, still the most prominent in textbooks of General and Developmental Psychology)]. This very outline of this sort of process has NO limits (except human limits) and it includes the abilities to know, have, and use abstractions, INCLUDING contingent abstractions (holding true in just only some sets of apparently similar circumstances; AND, eventually, with ontogeny and the development of sufficient abstract abilities, ALSO enabling the ability to think and classify across previously differently-seen [(i.e. seen as different)] circumstances -- putting such complexes together in a concept -- this sort of thing including the most sophisticated abstract concepts and processing there is) : in some ultimate ("final", "rock bottom") analysis this all is possible because of demonstrable development and changes in the Memories, WHICH CAN BE RESEARCHED (as other characteristic of the Memories HAVE BEEN researched to date); AND the inceptions of new MAJOR LEVELS (those being with the "perceptual shifts" ... ) can also be directly observed and researched, using the new eye tracking technology (and ancillary technologies) -- and this will greatly guide one to fruitful research on the Memories.
The reasons, likelihood, justifications, better assumptions involved in having this viewpoint and understanding, AND the qualitative changes that which are developed this way (basically starting with key, adaptive "perceptual shifts") is what I spend much of my 800 pages of writing on: 200 pages, written some decades ago, and some 600 pages, written just in the last three years -- a lot of this latter being the job I did not finish back in the late '80s (and I really had no reason to pursue until the development of new technologies, esp. eye tracking and related technologies, came into existence to allow for testing my hypotheses). I also have take great pains in these latter writings to contrast this perspective and approach as thoroughly and completely as I could with the status quo perspectives and approaches in General Psychology and Developmental Psychology . And, to show all the ways this [what I have dubbed] Ethogram Theory is better in so many, many ways, including in its basic foundations, clearly more empirical (as directly as possible) than any perspective and approach heretofore.
I both show in details what is wrong with the "old" and much more likely correct and useful -- and more than plausible (and Biologically consistent and plausible) -- through this new general view. (Again, I provide related testable hypotheses -- verifiable/falsifiable.)
You will be able to see this new approach as better empirically than any other. Related to this: the great benefit that the FIELD of study is ALL clearly and firmly based (grounded/founded) on just 2 "things": (1) directly observable KEY overt phenomena (behavior PATTERNS, here in Psychology ) and (2) on certain clear directly observable and present aspects of circumstances/situations (aka "the environment) active in KEY past developments and/or present now. This is simply the return to the original and intended definition of Psychology _AND_, frankly, is THE ONLY WAY TO BE BEST-EMPIRICAL. (Think about it: NO MISSING CONNECTIONS.)
(see the Project Log of this Project to see many important Updates)
ALSO (not among the 200 pages of major papers and 512 pages of essays in my "BOOK", you already have been directed to) the following link gets you to 100 more pages of worthwhile essays composed after the 512 pages: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331907621_paradigmShiftFinalpdf
Sincerely, with respect, Brad Jesness
I am carrying out a meta-analysis to investigate the relative degree of impairment for subcomponents of executive functioning for people after brain injury (ie. cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, working memory and planning/organisation ability).
Some studies report mean and SD for two or more measures of a given aspect of Executive Functioning (eg. two measures of inhibition). Given that they are conceptually similar, can you somehow combine these two means to get a pooled effect size for that study?
Following this, can you and how, do you combine this effect size with the effect sizes from other studies included in the overall meta-analysis.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated,
I am hoping to obtain the experiment files for a validated verbal and/or spatial n-back task, in order to use correlational data from these tasks to validate an n-back variation involving emotional verbal and spatial working memory.
Does anyone have any experience with conducting the novel object recognition test while administering a drug that has a short duration of action (so that it may "wear off" during the seemed-to-be "obligatory" 1 hour of retention time between the "training" session [T1] and the "test" session [T2])? Should it be administered nevertheless, before the T1? Or maybe after the T1? Or in any other way?
Hello RG community,
I was wondering if there is a test to assess children' working memory in a group setting (class room). The sample is composed by 3rd-to-5th grade italian children.
Thank you in advance for your help,
I've a study where I am assessing verbal working memory and visuo-spatial working memory. In order to assess visuo-spatial working memory I am using a paper pencil version of n-back test. While to assess verbal working memory I am using verbal auditory n-back test. I am not too sure if I am really assessing verbal working memory since I am using an auditory modality.
Can anyone please guide me on this?
I am planning a study in which I want to experimentally manipulate autobiographical memory coherence. The main task is that participants will have to recall and write about important autobiographical memories. I am interested in how a concurrent (non-verbal) task (which would increase cognitive load) impacts the coherence of participants' narratives. The hypothesis is that reduced working memory capacity will lead to less coherent narratives. Can someone recommend a suitable secondary task?
I am gathering a literature review for an EEG study investigating whether working memory capacity can mediate the association between rumination and internalizing disorders.
That is the question, lover of life, lover of others, empiricist or scientist ; thus finding the actual sequences which are causation(s) (aka the proximate causes). Better and better 'seeing', less ignorance ... , less confusion. Said also to be with less wanting and/or greed and with less suffering, as well. And as more is found, more opens up. Could anything else be the case? [ Such conclusions can come from checking the research on the Memories which, as they are (by definition), must be experience itself. ]
Let me give an example of what I speak of above (an example in my field: the very important and most vital field of developmental psychology (very much 'including' ontogeny) ). In Psychology what I am talking about is: proper perspective, properly viewing Psychology ("psychologizing" one's psychology, in a proper way, if you will) and THUS 'seeing' the ways there are of realistically (and rationally) AND thus actually having/doing conceptualizing and thinking (<-- those very things) as they really are (and of getting one's own and one's Subjects' real limits and abilities defined). In attempting this in Psychology (or in any science) one must "believe in" and maximize empirical grounding (all that is possibly there and detectable), showing EVERY SORT OF BEHAVIOR, related clearly and in an important ways (at least at their inception), TO directly observable particular overt behavior patterns of the Subject *. AND, this is BY DOING IT (for the researchers and the Subjects) in the REAL terms of the basic capacities of their species-typical Memories (also knowing and considering the hierarchical relationship of more adult concepts and thinking, compared to that of children) -- KNOWING ALL THAT, and using ALL THAT, required before doing decent psychology that will lead to real, lasting, and progressive discoveries on the development of cognition (that being central to other major other behavior patterns that develop). [ It may be hard, but you will get used to it; and, it is necessary; AND, actually, it is likely less hard to do than the 'theoretical,' unjustified "contortions" presently done today (which inevitably "dead-end") . ]
If you can but only agree, please read my writings (most all -- 1000 pages worth -- available through ResearchGate). [ NOTE: My writings include specific hypotheses for the direct observations of the overt behaviors central to thinking and concept development -- each of the major inceptions -- all found/put into the proper contexts (and "spelled out" as different and as alternatives from today's perspectives/'procedures' -- these latter also "spelled out", and shown in detail, as lacking and incorrect). ]
* FOOTNOTE: This perspective and rightful attempt (approach) AT/for DISCOVERIES is exactly what I outline as clearly as possible in my writings [ "as clearly AS POSSIBLE", that is, before the new, CLEARLY-PRESCRIBED, needed research, with clear testable hypotheses, is done (i.e. before having those hypotheses indeed tested) ].
What are the advantages of working memory model (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974) over the Atkinson and Shiffrin model (1968)?
I am currently wrapping up a chapter on 'Working memory as language aptitude: the Phonological/Executive Model', in which I develop the argument based on previous research that phonological WM (PWM) is a language acquisition device that subserves L2 knowledge of vocabulary, formulaic sequences (formula), and morpho-syntactic constructions; while executive WM is a language processing device that regulates and coordinates attentional resources during L2 comprehension and production activities (esp. online and offline processes during the four sub-skills of L2 listening, speaking, reading, and writing) (more can be seen in Wen, 2015, 2016)..
Meanwhile, I also argue that it is better to implement separate WM span tasks for PWM and EWM, such that, the simple (storage-only) version of memory span tasks (e.g., the digit span, nonword span etc.), while complex (storage plus processing) span tasks (e.g., reading span task, operation span task...) should be used to measure EWM (Wen, 2012 & 2014).
These are old stuff, I am also arguing that future EWM tests should focus on more fine-grained (secondary) mechanisms and executive functions of WM. In this case, following Miyake & Friedman (2012), EWM can be demarcated into information updating, task switching, and inhibitory control. I wonder, if anyone can give me more insights, if we want to adopt well-established tasks to measure each of these executive functions in a second language/bilingualism contexts. In other words, what might be the most well-established tasks? The recent paper by Indrarathne & Kormos (2018) has provided a nice reference and a good example. Still, I wish to check if there are other key references that I can refer to (esp from cognitive psychology or psycholinguistics). For now, I am arguing for adopting the 'Running memory span' task (Bunting et al., 2006) or the 'Keep track task' for measuring updating; Task switching numbers (Linck et al., 2013) or the 'Plus minus task' for measuring task switching; Antisacade or the Stroop task for measuring inhibitory control. How would these sound (advantages and disadvantages?).
Shall be very grateful if anyone can offer me some insights or refer me to some key references (I've got some in my own repertoire of references provided in other projects, which is available for all to download), but still wish to hear more for my consideration.
Thanks in advance for your input!
Commas, spaces and other separations in long digit-strings
1. facilitate user understanding,
2. reduce the risk that users will make interpretation errors,
3. reduce strain of human working memory during economic decisions, and
4. generally impose a order that seems to be appreciated by central banks in almost any other domain.
Yet very few use them for large denomination bills, apparently preferring unedited strings like 100000 or even 1000000.
Does anyone know why?
Good morning everyone
I study cognitive functions (working memory and selective attention) and reading in Children monolingual and bilingual Arabic French
Can I study code-switching between Arabic and French?
How can the procedure be?
This is about my PhD thesis where I am trying to see the pattern of memory deficit among different types of hypothyroidism. I have used a between subject group design. I have 1 IV with three levels. I have 4 four groups which are:
Subclinical Hypothyroid group N= 14
Overt Hypothyroid group N= 15
Euthyroid group N = 12
Healthy Control Group N = 15
I am using multiple types of memory measures broadly speaking I have administered 1 test of verbal memory with 6 types of scores (DVs) and 2 Tests for working memory with 4 types of scores (DVs). I have been asked to apply One-way MANOVA.
Coming to the issue I am facing is that applying One-way Manova would require meeting several assumptions which my data does not. My data fails to meet the following assumptions:
1.Normality (univariate): Shapiro-wilks test came significant on few dvs.
2.Linearity within DVs: scatterplot showed non linearity among different variables and bivariate correlation also showed non significant correlation between DVs.
3. Violation of homogeneity of variance assumption.
I had applied box-cox transformation using on some variables but that did not helped me solve the problem.
I pretty confused what to do. Whether I should go for multiple ANOVA instead of One single MANOVA. But in that case the alpha would be inflated and would cause type 1 error.
Would appreciate if someone could suggest something on this
If the EF is linked with brain function where it can control working memory and the cognitive ability. Then, what is the connection between EF and ADHD behaviour? And how EF and ADHD are linked?
It seems to me that working memory (involving the episodic buffer AND some -- to all the types -- of the Memories) is constantly at work and is our very experience itself.
Thus, I cannot see how the Memories (with at least some of them always active, determining and "recording" experience -- which most prominently and significantly active, dependent on circumstances) can be considered something separate from our knowledge OR our knowing OR our awareness OR our conscious being (all those: inclusively), i.e. as ANYTHING ever considerable as separate from experience itself.
Correct? Seems to me such a dualism would be a most-major problem. (This may be the biggest and perhaps primary dualism of them all, in reality (phenomenologically), though the nature/nurture dualism may seem worse -- but the latter may be somehow related to the former and even may have to be somehow related.)
Yet, we do seem to talk about "them" (the Memories, usually called "memory") at times as just one aspect of who we are (we seeing ourselves somehow as more than that "one 'aspect'")(and "memory" as sometimes something to consider, and other times not), don't we? (BUT: Wouldn't this be delusion "incarnate"?)
In short, we never "just are" (nor are we in any other way): these mechanisms having capacities and capabilities are ALWAYS at "work" since we ARE biological beings, in every way (like other animals) and at all times.
The Memories are central to good psychology understanding (or progress) and to good science in this "realm". The other major consideration (to have any generally good understanding of our reality/animal reality) is innate-guidance of behavioral development (especially throughout ontogeny); and, the question becomes : how does the innate-guidance aspects of behavior emerge along with (or, actually: "in") our other behavior patterns?; the fact of the always-present Memories can be an indication of the "acceptable" integral nature of emerging innate-guidance and why "perceptual shifts" become by far the likely candidates for what they (innately-guided behavioral aspects), along with other relevant behavior patterns, look like and ARE (<- including the "automatic" nature of our reality due to the past developments of the Memories and those "bringing forward" the very nature of what a good part of our reality looks like and IS).
I am looking for a good review article that has been recently published and that summarises the recent developments in working memory.
Hi. I am doing growth modeling with 3126 paritipants. Working memory was collected over 8 data points. Before I add SES into the model, I set up a basic model. But the basic model does not have good model fit. Based on my attached output, is there anything you would suggest?
As you can see, I already used modification indexes to create relationships.
Thanks for all of your help!
Hi, we are recently doing a working memory experiment in healthy, normal subjects with EEG and eye-tracking measurement. We have no prior background in psychology, but we have heard that some psychology lab let the subjects do some questionnaires before the actual experiment.
We wish to know is it a standard practice to do questionnaire before actual experiment in human neuroscience research? If yes, how can I find appropriate questionnaire? If no, then what kind of experiment need a questionnaire before hand?
I was using the T-test to compare between the stroke patient's and healthy subject's working memory in terms of Spectral entropy and relative powers. I want to find the FDR and its relation with the p value.
The difficulty to form and execute plans of action is diagnostic of large prefrontal lesions. The expectancy of reward activates many neurons, especially in orbital prefrontal cortex. All four major executive functions of the lateral prefrontal cortex (planning, executive attention, working memory, and decision-making) are prospective, “look” to a more or less distant future. The prefrontal cortex is rightfully called the “organ of creativity,” as it is capable of organizing novel actions and speech (it has “memory of the future,” Ingvar 1985). It is also capable of “imagining” what’s to come, and to estimate future risks and benefits. The stock market is moved up or down by the collective prefrontal cortex of countless investors. In sum, here is a brain structure that is literally driven by the future, eminently teleological. Many seem to ignore such an obvious fact. A bit of reflection is here in order, however.
For the self-respecting scientist, teleology is anathema and intolerable absurdity, because it reverses the natural temporal order between cause and effect. That reversal in the prefrontal cortex is only apparent, however, because for that cortex, as for the rest of nature, there is “nothing entirely new under the sun.” Thus, all new planning, all new creation, all new imagination, and all new decisions are based on history and prior experience. All of them are simply re-creations of the past.
Thus the absurdity is gone. But think of how dull, how witless, how plain and how barren would be a world without the prefrontal cortex!
J.M. Fuster and S.L Bressler – Past makes future: Role of pFC in prediction. J. Cogni. Neuroscience, 27: 639-654, 2015.
I would be thankful for any piece of literature introducing short, accessible and uncomputerised psychological tests for executive functioning and visual-motor processing. I am most interested in assessment of spatial and hierarchical planning.
There are many factors that affect drivers to drive safely, such as visual and cognitive factors, reaction time, working memory, and etc.. Is theres any good methods or tools to evaluate whether a driver is fitness to drive?
Memory components in MANNs are pretty basic. I know of models with multiple attention components. Are there Deep Learning (DL) architectures that employ a multiple-component approach for memory as in Baddeley & Hitch, 1974 and Baddeley, 2000?
I am currently collecting data for my research and i am using both the WRAT-4 and TOMAL-2 assessments. I am investigating whether a working memory intervention can improve academic performance. Therefore, i will be using a pre and post test analysis with the WRAT-4 and the TOMAL-2.
My question is, how can i analyze the results from each test as they have more than one numerical outcome.
For example, the WRAT-4 produces scores for reading, writing, spelling and maths and so i can find out if a participant is above or below an average. But when it comes to statistical testing i'm unsure of what method to do.
Could i collate all the scores together for each separate test and then produce an average? thus being able to use the average scores for pre and post testing ( e.g. using a t-test analysis)
Thanks in advance
I've a cognitive task that assess working memory. It has 20 trials with 9 trials having a target to which they've to respond by saying "yes". While for the non target trials they don't have to respond.
The test will yield a hit score and two error scores i.e., error of omissions and commissions.
I know I can calculate the hit percentage by dividing the hit score and dividing it by 9. But I am not sure how should I calculate the "false alarm rate" ( error of commission) and the "miss rate" (error of omissions)
Can anyone please help me on this??
I am trying to design an Operation span task using Psychopy's 'Builder' module (using mainly the GUI). I think I managed most things except finding a way to incorporate multiple input keys. Could anyone suggest what I need to change so that I can register multiple response inputs??
This would really help
I am recently conducting a meta-analysis on working memory. I want to know whether there is a minimum requirement of the number of articles for a meta-analysis? Moreover, I've been through several meta-analysis on working memory, an found that several studies did not distinguish WM from STM. I wonder whether such a treatment is appropriate.
I want to present you with a possible particular concrete example (instance) of a perceptual shift, i.e. the inception of a stage shift (in 'seeing' and [at first, very vaguely,] in some sense IN cognition), showing all the 4 phases of a perceptual shift for the overall process of the beginning of a qualitative stage shift part of the development of cognition -- before purely associative learning "holds sway" by itself again.
This hypothetical example comes from the ape (gorilla) social "world", from which our abilities to have progressively developing levels of concepts and thinking likely first evolved. Well, HERE IS IS:
Think of an child ape, not an infant but perhaps a mid-age-child individual. He has from his previous development a conceptual idea of the dominant (adult) male gorilla (and his behavior patterns, relating to this).
But, then he "notices" that this dominant male, at times rushes towards other adults, to seemingly show other ways to express his dominance (or other aspects of that dominance) which he has not shown before (or which the young ape has not clearly seen, noticed, or processed before).
This is the kind of thing indicating [with him, this child] innate guidance, given he has good, refined earlier knowledge: AT FIRST BEING some gap in the child ape's conceptual understanding of the OVERALL structure of this adult dominance behavior. That "gap", (phase 1) of the now first-emerging of a NEW perceptual shift, may show itself in a situation (or early situations) as just something involving automatically vaguely orienting TOWARD the key situation and behaviors (and would be shown behaviorally simply in prolonged gaze when/after this dominance phenomenon shows itself).
Soon (perhaps VERY SOON) he will better see such dominance events WHEN THEY OCCUR (because of the specific "gap" existing in his understanding); this second phase (of the perceptual shift) will show clearly: orienting to the aspects of this new-to-understand type of dominance expression (still, for the most part, not conscious).
In the third phase of the shift, he will reliably have seen regularities as he continues good orientation needed to observe things associated with this dominance event. HERE he can be said to be expressly and explicitly and consciously ATTENDING to occurrences of this event.
Finally (in the fourth phase of the shift) he will integrate the essentials into memory: facts-for-occurrence, key aspects of this dominant male's behavior (with respect to dominance behavior patterns), and key aspects of the spacial and temporal aspects ("in the world"), associated with these dominance behaviors pattern's key content in visual-spacial memory (which he will be able to play back in his mind, when NOT present in the situation where the adult male dominance behavior occurs; i.e. he can "reflect"). BUT, TO DO ALL THIS:
This fourth phase shows the development of some fact/declarative memory (basically the main static features of the dominance act and their relationships to each other, defined) -- this is the declarative/"semantic" aspect of long-term memory he has developed and is developing. Also, some procedural knowledge develops (at the same time) about how to act in response to this dominance expression (especially if his has something "to do" with he, himself): this thoroughly developed, active and automatized response (or set of responses) is the procedural aspect of long-term memory he has gained: this aspect, known as procedural memory.
Also, in the fourth phase FOR THE MOST PART, he has a record-of-incident (episode) memory which is most prominently in the visual-spacial memory which is, in an indirect way, the actual thing he is able to play back key portions of in his mind, just as he sits and thinks about this dominance phenomenon -- given the EPISODIC BUFFER. (Other key aspects [mentioned above] of long-term Memories are also determining the nature of the BUFFER and are "there". ) So, the ability to do this out-of the situation reflection, just described above, relies on (and is delimited by) the content that will be a notable part of his EPISODIC BUFFER, doing some major contextualization of his working memory (entering into it) where further, now more-simple associative learning may now continue to occur, until all the Memories (each and together) are thoroughly refined.
He no doubt will also, through cued thinking (and likely some observation) relate this aspect of his concept of dominance to other aspects at the same conceptual level (and to/with earlier conceptual levels) that are related to shows of dominance. When ALL this (all of the 4 phases and associative learning needed for refinements and concept integration) has occurred (perhaps taking a year), he will be ready to notice other greater patterns BY HAVING a new perceptual shift (that, too, with 4 similar phases) -- these are the core foundational happenings in ontogeny (aka THE proximate directly observable causes of the development of behavior patterns via perceptual shifts) and that which AGAIN allows qualitative NEW learning new ways (using a qualitatively different kind of learning, and also using well-refined aspects from earlier stages): to AGAIN further develop his representation system(s)( aka concept structure), this being related to all major aspects of the Memories and likely mostly connected with through visual-spacial memories, and all the other Memories connected to that AND USED (in the final step of cognizance) BY THE EPISODIC BUFFER; then working memory can work on new "things".
[ Full explication and justification for this approach (and the implications of this approach) can be found via :
Could anyone recommend an instrument (computer/maybe available online or paper and pencil task) to measure mental body rotation? Especially I am looking for advanced tasks to measure MBR in athletes.
Thanks in advance,
I am conducting my MA dissertation and i will be looking at whether a working memory intervention programme can help to increase academic achievement with students who have a diagnosis of dyslexia.
Whilst I can find many computer based programmes for working memory (E.g. Cogmed), I was hoping there may be some which can be printed and used with students with pen and paper.
My aim is take 20/25 students and get them to complete working memory tasks twice on a weekly basis for a four weeks intervention.
I'm looking for an easy, short task to test verbal working memory in children aged 5 to 8. I need the same task for all children, any suggestions?