Abstract
Introduction
Passing and receiving information from one being to another is based on how well a person can remember. Often people tend to forget things and are heard saying “oh, my memory failed me.” The big question here, however, is how exactly does the memory work. How does the person’s memory, manage to keep information passed on to it, for sometimes a long time whereas there are times when it just goes blank in second? It is important to know the message storing part if the brain. This is in the modern world, known as the working memory.
According to Baddeley (2000), the working memory as a system with low capacity, where temporary storage and manipulation of information which would involve tasks, hence manipulation, such as comprehension and reasoning occurs. According to the definition by Baddeley, the working memory is hence a system involving several operations. A system should have several parts or organs that work together to achieve a set objective (Gelinas, Dull & Wheeler 2011). In this case, the Working memory system works towards storing of information for as long as it possibly can. The short term memory, on the contrary, was defined as a single unit that held information for a short time (Goldstein 2010).
Since the working memory is a system, it works sees through the completion of tasks through three components. The three components are the phonological loop, the visuospatial sketch pad and the central executive (Goldstein 2010). The phonological loop is tasked with the memory of information that was passed through speaking. A good example is trying to remember something said during a discussion. The visuospatial sketch pad is tasked with remembering information that was passed through sight. A good example is trying to remember what one has read during an exam. The central executive is the part that gets that which one wants to remember. It acts as the main coordinator in memorizing and remembering.
Hypothesis to guide the group through the experiment
Do the various parts of the memory system affect one’s ability to remember? To explore and find out the facts behind this question, the group was formed and tasked with the responsibility of finding out how the various parts of the working memory system affect the memory of a person. For the research to be fruitful and one with set objectives, some hypothesis were formulated. They include:
- Based on the theory of phonological similarity effect (Eysenck 2004), memory span for dissimilar letters would be higher than that of letters that sound similar.
- Going by the basis of word length effect (Eysenck 2004), the group also hypothesized that long words would have a lower memory span as compared to short words.
- The hypothesis, words would have a higher memory span than digits, was also agreed upon based on the argument by Baddeley (1997, p. 31)
With the hypotheses at hand, the group was ready to undertake the experiment and use the facts collected to gather more elaborate information on memory span, and how the components of the working memory affect one’s memory.
Results obtained from the experiment
The Maulchly’s test illustrated that assumption of sphericity was not violated (sig= .622). The ANOVA results indicated that significant differences existed between the variables and that some variables were easier to recall than others F( 4, 104)= 47.48, p< .001 partial ƞ2=.65 The sample space of the experiment consisted 301 people. Of this population, 101 people were female while 31 were male. The age of the sample from which the data was collected ranged from 19 to 59 years (M=24.80, SD=8.31). From the collected data, memory span for the digits (M= 6.40, SD=1.07) was the highest. Memory span for dissimilar letters (M=5.56, SD=1.03) was higher than that of similar letters (M=4.93, SD=1.04). Short words (M=5.15, SD=0.97) memory span was higher compared to long words memory span (M= 4.08, SD=0.93).
Discussion
According to the phonological loop model, letters with similar phonological structure become more rapidly similar. The rapid similarity is caused by more rapid decay. However, letters with different phonological structures, take longer to decay (Conway 1997). In the case of the experiment, the letters ‘B’ pronounced as “bee and ‘c’ pronounced as “see” have similar phonological structures. On the other hand, ‘f’ (Ef) and ‘q’ (queue) have a different phonological structure. Decay, in the first case, will leave the population sample with the same information hence would not give him a chance from which to rebuild his memory. Conversely, the population sample shall have a chance to build his memory since, upon decay, the information left shall not be similar.
Consequently, the second hypotheses, longer words would be harder to remember than short words were also affirmed by the experiments. The mean of the remembered short words was larger than that of the long words that were remembered. The word length effect is a result of the difficulty of the chore involved in the production of an output (Gathercole 1996). The duration comprehension of the long words in the experiment, such as bicycle, would take longer hence provide more time for decay than the short words such as “bat” in the experiment. This approves the reason as to why the population involved in the experiment found it harder to recall the long words than the short ones.
However, the research group found the third hypothesis to be not true. The population under research was able to remember the numbers more than they could remember the words. An explanation to this is that the numbers are more easily visualized than words (Tammet 2009). Once turned to pictures within the person’s mind, the pictures are more easily remembered as compared to the words (Skladzien 2008). This is caused by the fact that pictures do undergo a more elaborate encoding than words. So being the case, pictures are less subject to decay in comparison to words. This is the reason why the population’s memory span for the numbers was more than that of words.
Findings and the report from the experiment could be mainly used to educate people on how the brain works in keeping of memory. The findings can be used to teach students on the better methods of study. That is, how best to make sure that one does remember whatever he or she reads. The experiment conducted may have had some faults in it especially during the collection of data. The range in the population age, however, was too high for the population size, this may have led to the collection of ambiguous data hence tampering with the result findings. This resulted to the wide range found in the number of digits, letters or words remembered. As a result of the faulty research result, the same may have caused the group to come up with conclusions that may be regarded as faulty from a theoretical point of view.
However, it is best to make corrections where possible. In subsequent researches on such a topic, it would be advisable that wider samples space be used. This would reduce the range seen in the ability to remember. Age is directly related to memory loss (Lueckenotte 2009). A wide range of ages of the participants, therefore, causes a wider range in the results obtained. The result of this would be a huge effect on the results obtained from such an experiment that mostly involves the memory’s capability to store information.
Conclusion
The research was an eye-opener to some of the theories that have only been learnt from books so far. Based on the research findings, a person’s memory span is largely affected by the mode in which the information got into the working memory. In the case that one is revising for some test, it is better to use the revision materials in form of pictures rather than using text. It is now clear why some people tend to read a lot but the same fails to reflect in their performance in class. More to that, the information, that is the form in which it is in, mainly dictates whether the information will last or whether it will decay as fast as it was received.
References
Baddeley A. D.2000. Episodic Buffer? Oxford: Blackwell publishers
Gelinas J. U., Dull B. R., Wheeler P., 2011. Accounting Information Systems. USA: Cengage Learning.
Lueckenotte D, 2009. Alzheimer's Days Gone By: For Those Caring for Their Loved Ones Bloomington: AuthorHouse
Skladzien M. E., 2008. Age Differences in Output Monitoring Accuracy in a Prospective Memory Task
Tammet D, 2009. Embracing the Wide Sky: Tour Across Horizons of the Mind. U.S.A: Atria books.
Baddeley D. A, 1997. Human Memory: Theory and Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Goldstein E., 2010. Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research and Everyday Experience. U.S.A: Cengage Learning
Gathercole E. S., 1996. Short-Term and Working Memory. East Sussex: Psychology Press
Conway A. M. 1997. Cognitive Models of Memory. Massachusetts: The MIT Press
Eysenck W. M., 2004. Psychology: An International Perspective. East Sussex: Psychology Press
