An Examination of Long-Term Working Memory Capacity

In 1956, Miller first reported on a capacity limitation in the amount of information the human brain can process, which was thought to be seven plus or minus two items. The system of memory used to process information for immediate use was coined “working memory” by Miller, Galanter, and Pribram in 1960. In 1968, Atkinson and Shiffrin proposed their multistore model of memory, which theorized that the memory system was separated into short-term memory, long-term memory, and the sensory register, the latter of which temporarily holds and forwards information from sensory inputs to short term-memory for processing. Baddeley and Hitch built upon the concept of multiple stores, leading to the development of the multicomponent model of working memory in 1974, which described two stores devoted to the processing of visuospatial and auditory information, both coordinated by a central executive system. Later, Cowan’s theorizing focused on attentional factors in the effortful and effortless activation and maintenance of information in working memory. In 1988, Cowan published his model—the scope and control of attention model. In contrast, since the early 2000s Engle has investigated working memory capacity through the lens of his individual differences model, which does not seek to quantify capacity in the same way as Miller or Cowan. Instead, this model describes working memory capacity as the interplay between primary memory (working memory), the control of attention, and secondary memory (long-term memory). This affords the opportunity to focus on individual differences in working memory capacity and extend theorizing beyond storage to the manipulation of complex information. These models and advancements have made significant contributions to understandings of learning and cognition, informing educational research and practice in particular. Emerging areas of inquiry include investigating use of gestures to support working memory processing, leveraging working memory measures as a means to target instructional strategies for individual learners, and working memory training. Given that working memory is still debated, and not yet fully understood, researchers continue to investigate its nature, its role in learning and development, and its implications for educational curricula, pedagogy, and practice.

Download Full-text

Working memory capacity and recall from long-term memory: Examining the influences of encoding strategies, study time allocation, search efficiency, and monitoring abilities.

Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition ◽

10.1037/xlm0000148 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 42 (1) ◽

pp. 50-61 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Nash Unsworth

Keyword(s):

Working Memory ◽

Time Allocation ◽

Working Memory Capacity ◽

Memory Capacity ◽

Study Time ◽

Long Term Memory ◽

Search Efficiency ◽

Term Memory ◽

Encoding Strategies

Download Full-text

Does limited working memory capacity underlie age differences in associative long-term memory?

Psychology and Aging ◽

10.1037/pag0000317 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 34 (2) ◽

pp. 268-281 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Lea M. Bartsch ◽

Vanessa M. Loaiza ◽

Klaus Oberauer

Keyword(s):

Working Memory ◽

Age Differences ◽

Working Memory Capacity ◽

Memory Capacity ◽

Long Term Memory ◽

Term Memory

Download Full-text

Incorporating semantics and individual differences in models of working memory

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x03360169 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 26 (6) ◽

pp. 742-742

Author(s):

Janice M. Keenan ◽

Jukka Hyönä ◽

Johanna K. Kaakinen

Keyword(s):

Working Memory ◽

Individual Differences ◽

Language Processing ◽

Working Memory Capacity ◽

Memory Capacity ◽

Long Term Memory ◽

Term Memory ◽

General Capacity ◽

Capacity Estimates

Ruchkin et al.'s view of working memory as activated long-term memory is more compatible with language processing than models such as Baddeley's, but it raises questions about individual differences in working memory and the validity of domain-general capacity estimates. Does it make sense to refer to someone as having low working memory capacity if capacity depends on particular knowledge structures tapped by the task?

Download Full-text