Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T14:16:23.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Auditory and lexical information sources in immediate recall: evidence from a patient with deficit to the phonological short-term store

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

Giuseppe Vallar
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Milano
Tim Shallice
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Many of the recent efforts to provide functional explanations for the deficits of patients with limited repetition span have used the theoretical framework available in the working memory model (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Baddeley, 1986). According to this formulation, a limited-capacity memory system composed of several distinct subcomponents is available for temporary storage of information that is needed for a variety of cognitive tasks. Recent modifications of the working memory model relevant to verbal tasks have postulated two separate components for the storage and maintenance of verbal information. An articulatory loop system, which provides for the subvocal rehearsal of verbal information in an articulatory code, has been supplemented in recent discussions by a more passive phonological short-term store, to which auditory–verbal information gains obligatory access. A variety of experimental results obtained with normal subjects necessitated the postulation of the nonarticulatory phonological short-term store (STS) (see Baddeley, 1983, for review). The most important of these for present purposes is the following: Prevention of subvocal articulation (which presumably blocks effective use of the articulatory loop) does not prevent the phonological similarity among to-be-remembered items from interfering with recall when stimuli are presented aurally. This “phonological similarity effect” is presumed to reflect phonological factors intrinsic to storage in some nonarticulatory component of the system.

Another finding with normal subjects supports the articulatory basis of the rehearsal loop. Longer words (those that take longer to articulate) are not recalled as well as shorter words, but this “word length effect” can be removed by the prevention of rehearsal through concurrent articulation.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×