Outline and evaluate the main theoretical developments and unresolved issues in research on working memory in recent years.

In recent times working memory, defined by Baddeley (2011) as the broad framework of interacting processes that involve the temporary storage and manipulation of information in the service of performing complex cognitive activities (pg.1), has became one of the most widely recognised concepts within cognitive psychology and neuroscience (Jarrold & Towse, 2006). Central to many cognitive theories related to control of attention and thought (McCabe, Roediger, McDaniel, Balota, & Hambrick, 2010) the past couple of decades have also witnessed the framework of working memory being applied across a diverse range of areas such as education (Gathercole & Pickering, 2000) and paleoanthropology (Wynn & Coolidge, 2004). Although the term was originally coined by Miller, Galanter, and Pribram (1960), current understanding of working memory has primarily arisen from the multicomponent model originally proposed by Baddeley & Hitch (1974, as cited in Baddeley, 2003) which has underwent substantial modification in recent times. (Baddeley, 2000). However despite such advances, significant aspects related to working memory such as its interaction with long term memory (Baddeley, 2010), and the exact storage capacity limit of items (Zhang & Luck, 2008) remain unresolved. This article will outline and evaluate the key advances to knowledge of working memory which have arisen from recent research, as well as addressing the main questions yet to be answered within the field.

The concept of working memory originally arose from research and theories related to short term memory, an area which attracted great interest within the field of cognitive psychology from the 1960s onwards (Baddeley, 2010). The most influential model of short term memory from this time was proposed by Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968) who hypothesised short term memory as being a temporary single storage system. However a number of substantial

difficulties later became apparent with this model. Firstly, it was assumed by Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968) that incoming information passes only in a linear fashion from short to long term memory. However, Craik & Lockhart(1972) found processing of verbal information related to meaning or emotion to predict superior learning than encoding based on its spoken sound or physical appearance, demonstrating that short-term memory processing is influenced by information from long term memory. Secondly, Atkinson & Shiffrins (1968) model hypothesised proper functioning of the singular short-term memory storage system as being crucial for learning and cognitive performance. However Baddeley & Hitch (1974 as cited in Baddeley, 2003) utilising a dual-task procedure whereby individuals performed reasoning and learning tasks whilst simultaneously partaking in a secondary task requiring full short term memory capacity, observed no dramatic impairment in cognitive functioning and learning occurred when working memory was unavailable.

Based on such findings, Baddeley & Hitch (1974, as cited by Baddeley, 2002) proposed working memory as a concept based on a tripartite system. This model of working memory addressed key limitations of Atkinson & Shiffrins (1968) theory of by replacing the unitary system of short term memory with multiple interacting components and allowing for parallel processing between subsystems rather than an unidirectional transfer of information (Baddeley, 2010). An attentional control system, the central executive, was assumed to be supported by two slave temporary storage systems, both limited in capacity. The visuo-spatial sketchpad was envisioned as being responsible for retention of visual information whilst the phonological loop was hypothesised as being necessary for the temporary storage and articulatory rehearsal of verbal-auditory material. Both supplementary systems were assumed to be coordinated by the central executive (Baddeley & Hitch 1974, as cited by Baddeley, 2003).

Whilst Baddeley & Hitchs original theory of working memory continues to be widely influential today,(McCabe, Roediger, McDaniel, Balota, & Hambrick, 2010) subsequent research has led to an extensive recent adaptation to their original model with the inclusion of a fourth component, the episodic buffer (Baddeley, 2000). Such an addition was necessary given the inability of the original model to explain the exact nature and function of the central executive (Baddeley, 1992). Subsequently, it was claimed by Parker (1998) that the concept of a central executive acted as little more than a hypothetical homunculus, and was thus an unfalsifiable construct. An additional difficulty was the lack of a mechanism to explain the process of chunking, whereby information present in long term memory supplements immediate memory span, allowing greater recall of information (Baddeley, 2003).

Thus Baddeley (2000) proposed the episodic buffer as being a temporary storage system controlled and accessed through the central executive. Capable of holding episodes of multidimensional information such as visual and auditory information, this additional system was proposed to act as an interface between working and long term memory. Like both the phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad, the episodic buffer was assumed to be limited in capacity. Although originally hypothesised as having an active role in the integration of information and initiating new cognitive representations Baddeley (2000), it is now assumed that this buffer has a much more passive role, acting as a storing system rather than as a processer (Baddeley, 2009). Most recently the episodic buffer has being hypothesised to be accessed by both supplementary systems of working memory, rather than the central executive alone as previously proposed Baddeley (2011). Such an adjustment to the model would support recent research demonstrating that chunking of information still occurs even when the central executive is fully engaged, thus indicating that this process relies on the

interaction between long term memory and other component systems of working memory (Baddeley, Hitch & Allen, 2009; Allen, ,Hitch, & Baddeley, 2009).

Advances in the understanding of working memory have also being greatly aided in recent years by the development of advanced neuroimaging techniques such as PET and fMRI, which have allowed an understanding of the anatomical localization of working memory to be developed (Mitchell & Johnson, 2009). Significantly, regions of the brain that are activated for tasks requiring verbal recall differ from those activated on spatial and object memory tasks, thus supporting the existence of the visuo-spatial sketchpad and the phonological loop as two separate systems (Jonides et al., 2007). Verbal memory is primarily left hemispheric dominant, implicating both the left inferior frontal and left parietal cortices (Awe et al., 1996). In contrast, spatial memory is reliant on right hemispheric regions such as the right posterior dorsal and right parietal cortices (Jonides et al,. 1993). The hippocampus, long associated with long term memory function, has now also being implicated in working memory retrieval, along with the left inferior frontal gyrus (Oztekin, McElree, Staresina, & Davachi, 2008) Somewhat surprisingly however, neuroimaging has not shown major differences in anatomical localization between long term and working memory (Jonides et al. 2007), with significant overlap in activation of frontal and parietal regions being observed during completion of long term and working memory tasks (Cabeza , Dolcos , Graham, & Nyberg, 2002). Such a finding conflicts with previous brain lesion studies of individuals who despite total impairment in long term memory still had normal function on working performance tasks (Scoville, & Milner, 1957) and vice versa(Shalloe & Warrington, 1970). One possible explanation is that working memory tasks utilised by neuroimaging investigations typically use longer retention periods than other neuropsychological studies, and thus somewhat represent long term memory tasks (Jonides et al., 2007).

Another major area of interest that has emerged in recent years is the relationship between working memory and academic performance, with particularly emphasis placed on its possible implications for educating children with learning disabilities. A number of investigations have demonstrated that children who perform poorly in mathematical tasks also have difficulty in working memory tasks (Hitch & McAuley, 1991; Swanson, 1993), a somewhat expected finding given that the ability to retain manipulate and recall arithmetical information in working memory is vital for mental calculations (Jarrold & Towse, 2006). Of greater significance is the presence of an association between working memory task performance and functioning in areas not directly dependent on retention and recall of multiple items, such as reading (Daneman & Merikle, 1996) and overall academic

performance (Towse &, Houston-Price 2001). Utilising a longitudinal design, Alloway (2009) found that childrens performance in working memory tasks with learning difficulties significantly predicted learning ability and academic ability two years later whilst measures of IQ did not, thus demonstrating the importance of working memory for multiple aspects of learning and cognitive performance. Such research has led to great interest in possible interventions that could target from an early age children with working memory impairments. Gathercole, Lamont & Allaway (2006) has recommended a number of effective intervention measures that could be applied in schools, including avoidance of complex sentences, the repetition of key information by teachers and other pupils, and increased use of memory aids such as coloured posters.

Whilst the last couple of decades have witnessed major advances in theoretical understandings across all aspects of working memory, there are a number of major unresolved issues yet to be addressed. One such difficulty present since the earliest research in the field but remains controversial is the capacity limit of working memory, namely the

amount of items that can be actively rehearsed in memory at any one time. Originally Miller (1956) postulated this capacity as being seven items plus or minus two. However more recent estimates have being lower, with Cowan (2000) proposing a limit of four items, claiming Millers (1956) original claim to be an overestimation due to chunking of information by participants. A far more severe estimate of working memory capacity has being proposed by Garavan (1998), who found that responses when counting differing shape categories were significantly slower than responses when counting shapes from the same category. Based on the finding, it was hypothesised that working memory is only able to focus attention on a single internal counter at any one time, and thus capacity is limited to one item alone. Contrastingly, Baddeley, Thompson & Buchanan (1975) assessed the limit of working memory capacity based on by time rather than number of items, observing that approximately two seconds of verbal information could be successfully recirculated in memory.

A second major unresolved issue is the nature of the interaction present between working and long term memory. Although the increase in working memory capacity associated with chunking conclusively demonstrates that such a relationship exists, the nature of this association is less apparent (Baddeley, 2010). Most recently Baddeley (2011) has stated the episodic buffer as providing the link between the visuo-spatial and phonological loop subsystems of working memory and long-term memory, postulating that such an interaction is most likely to be localised in the hippocampus region. However, no further exploration on the nature of such an interaction was provided. Finally, whilst strong evidence exists supporting the relationship between individuals performance on working memory tasks and multiple other aspects related to cognition and general academic performance (Jarrold & Towse, 2006), the underlying mechanisms of this association are yet to be comprehensively understood. One hypothesis is that differences in

working memory capacity reflect variation in attention capacity rather than a measure of an individuals ability to rehearse and recall multiple items (Engle, 2010). Thus it is hypothesised that it is the maintenance of attention during tasks that underlies performance in working memory as well as performance in a many other aspects of cognitive functioning. Alternatively, Miyake et al. (2000) have postulated that it is the interaction of multiple simple aspects of executive function that predicts level of cognitive ability, rather than working memory alone.

In conclusion, understanding of working memory can be seen to have flourished in recent years. Both new neuroimaging techniques and research from outside the domain of cognitive psychology, have provided valuable insight into its nature as well as illustrating the practical implications that working memory performance has on an individuals functioning and learning ability. The model of working memory originally proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) continues to be widely accepted following adaptations; however its continued evolution will be essential to incorporate emerging aspects of working memory. In particular, Future research is necessary so that the nature of associations between working memory, long term memory and wider aspects of cognitive and wider academic functioning can be comprehensively evaluated. However it must be noted that such studies may raise further questions as well providing valuable insight into what continues to be one of the most important and fascinating areas within cognition.

References Allen, R.J.,Hitch,G.J.,& Baddeley,A.D.(2009).Cross-modal binding and working memory. Visual Cognition, 17, 83102. Alloway, T. P. (2009). Working memory, but not IQ, predicts subsequent learning in children with learning difficulties. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25, 92-98. Atkinson, R.C., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K.W. Spence & J.T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89195). New York: Academic Press Awh, E., Jonides J., Smith E.E, Schumacher E.H, Koeppe R.A, & Katz S. (1996) Dissociation of storage and rehearsal in verbal working memory: evidence from PET. Psychological. Science. 7:2531 Baddeley, A.D.(2000).The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417423 Baddeley, A. D (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4 (10), 829-839 Baddeley A.D (2010). Working memory Current. Biology;20 (4):136-140 Baddeley,A.D.,Allen, R.J., & Hitch, G.R (2011).Binding in visual working memory:The role of the episodic buffer. Neuropsychologia (in press) Baddeley, A.D., Hitch, G.J., & Allen, R.J. (2009). Working memory and binding in sentence recall. Journal of Memory & Language 61, 438456 Baddeley A.D, Thomson N., & Buchanan M. (1975). Word length and structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behaviour. 14(6):57589

Cabeza, R, Dolcos F, Graham, R, & Nyberg, L. (2002). Similarities and differences in the neural correlates of episodic memory retrieval and working memory. Neuroimage 16: 31730 Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioural Brain Science. 24:87185 Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing -a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behaviour.11, 671684 Daneman M., & Merikle P.M (1996) Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin Review 3:422433 Engle, R.W (2010) Role of working-memory capacity in cognitive control Current Anthropology, 51 7-22 Garavan H. (1998) Serial attention within working memory. Memory & Cognition. 26:263276 Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2000). Working memory deficits in children with low achievements in the national curriculum at 7 years of age. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70,177194 Gathercole, S. E., Lamont, E., & Alloway, T. P. (2006).Working memory in the classroom. In S. Pickering (Ed.), Working memory and education (pp. 219240).Amsterdam: Elsevier Press Hitch G.J &, McAuley E. (1991) Working memory in children with specific arithmetical learning difficulties. British Journal of Psychology 82:375386 Jarrold, C. & Towse, J.N (2006) Individual differences in working memory. Neuroscience 139: 3950. Jonides, J, Smith, E.E, Koeppe, R.A, Awh, E., Minoshima, S., & Mintun M.A. (1993). Spatial working memory in humans as revealed by PET. Nature 363:62325

Jonides, J., Lewis, R., Nee, D., Lustig, C., Berman, M., & Moore, K. (2007). The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 193224 McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L., McDaniel, M. A., Balota, D. A., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2010). The relationship between working memory capacity and executive functioning: Evidence for an executive attention construct. Neuropsychology, 24, 222243 Miyake, A., Friedman, N.P., Emerson, M.J., Witzki, A.H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex frontal lobe tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive. Psychology. 41, 49100 Miller, G. A., Galanter,E. & Pribram K.H. (1960) Plans and the Structure of Behavior. New York: Holt. Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97 Mitchell K.J, & Johnson M.K. (2009). Source monitoring 15 years later: What have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory? Psychological Bulletin 135: 638677 Oztekin, I., McElree, B., Staresina, B. P., & Davachi, L. (2008). Working memory retrieval: Contributions of the left prefrontal cortex, the left posterior parietal cortex, and the hippocampus. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21 (3), 581-593 Parkin, A.J. (1998). The central executive does not exist. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4, 518-522. Scoville WB, & Milner B. (1957). Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions. Journal of Neurology & Neurosurgical. Psychiatry 20:1121 Shallice T, & Warrington EK. (1970). Independent functioning of verbal memory stores: a neuropsychological study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 22:26173

Swanson H.L (1993) Working memory in learning disability subgroups. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 56:87114 Towse J.N, & Houston-Price C.M.T (2001) Combining representations in working memory: A brief report. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 19:319324 Wynn, T. & Coolidge, F.L (2004). The expert Neanderthal mind. Journal of Human Evolution 46,467-487. Zhang, W., & Luck, S. J. (2008). Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory. Nature, 453 (92), 233-235