Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
The Working Memory
The Working Memory: Theory Development
As we have studied, the working memory (Baddeley, 2000b) includes multiple components responsible for various functions of short-term encoding, processing, storing, sorting, planning, and problem-solving. The phonological loop stores sounds, and the visual-spatial sketchpad stores visual and spatial information. The episodic buffer, which is the newest component of working memory, provides a temporary storage and combination spot for information from the phonological loop, the visual-spatial sketchpad, and the long-term memory. The episodic buffer allows for this new stored information to be combined with previously learned information that is now part of the long-term memory. In the meantime, the central executive has a hand in all of the processes of the working memory, combining and processing information from the phonological loop, the visual-spatial sketchpad, and the episodic buffer. The CE is the control center that aids in attention, planning strategies, and coordinating behavior, as well as suppressing irrelevant information. The CE does not store, but does aid in strategy selection to solve problems.
To understand Baddeley’s (2000b) working memory model, theorists and researchers have put the model to the test. Baddeley (2001) himself has reviewed his model. He has discovered that the hypothesis in early research that the visual-spatial sketchpad and phonological loop cause more problems in the working memory than the central executive is not necessarily accurate (Baddeley, 2001). Deficits in the performance of the phonological loop impact vocabulary development and language acquisition (Baddeley, 2000). Andersson and Lyxell (2007) have found that deficits in the central executive and phonological loop impact learning in children with mathematical deficits. Children with developmental coordination disorder experience problems with visual-spatial memory (Packiam-Alloway, 2007). In the meantime, Swanson and Kim (2007) have found evidence to correlate with Andersson and Lyxell (2007) that the central executive and phonological loop are the key components in all children’s mathematical performance. Tests done on children with mild intellectual disabilities suggest once again that the phonological loop and central executive play a major role in learning outcomes (Van der Molen, et al. 2007). In all of the above studies (Baddeley, 2001; Andersson & Lyxell, 2007; Packiam-Alloway, 2007; Swanson & Kim, 2007; Van der Molen, et al. 2007), the evidence suggests that the visual-spatial sketchpad does not pose a problem with learning unless individuals suffer developmental coordination disorder or Williams syndrome or experience an overload of concurrent visuospatial tasks.
As we have studied, the working memory (Baddeley, 2000b) includes multiple components responsible for various functions of short-term encoding, processing, storing, sorting, planning, and problem-solving. The phonological loop stores sounds, and the visual-spatial sketchpad stores visual and spatial information. The episodic buffer, which is the newest component of working memory, provides a temporary storage and combination spot for information from the phonological loop, the visual-spatial sketchpad, and the long-term memory. The episodic buffer allows for this new stored information to be combined with previously learned information that is now part of the long-term memory. In the meantime, the central executive has a hand in all of the processes of the working memory, combining and processing information from the phonological loop, the visual-spatial sketchpad, and the episodic buffer. The CE is the control center that aids in attention, planning strategies, and coordinating behavior, as well as suppressing irrelevant information. The CE does not store, but does aid in strategy selection to solve problems.
To understand Baddeley’s (2000b) working memory model, theorists and researchers have put the model to the test. Baddeley (2001) himself has reviewed his model. He has discovered that the hypothesis in early research that the visual-spatial sketchpad and phonological loop cause more problems in the working memory than the central executive is not necessarily accurate (Baddeley, 2001). Deficits in the performance of the phonological loop impact vocabulary development and language acquisition (Baddeley, 2000). Andersson and Lyxell (2007) have found that deficits in the central executive and phonological loop impact learning in children with mathematical deficits. Children with developmental coordination disorder experience problems with visual-spatial memory (Packiam-Alloway, 2007). In the meantime, Swanson and Kim (2007) have found evidence to correlate with Andersson and Lyxell (2007) that the central executive and phonological loop are the key components in all children’s mathematical performance. Tests done on children with mild intellectual disabilities suggest once again that the phonological loop and central executive play a major role in learning outcomes (Van der Molen, et al. 2007). In all of the above studies (Baddeley, 2001; Andersson & Lyxell, 2007; Packiam-Alloway, 2007; Swanson & Kim, 2007; Van der Molen, et al. 2007), the evidence suggests that the visual-spatial sketchpad does not pose a problem with learning unless individuals suffer developmental coordination disorder or Williams syndrome or experience an overload of concurrent visuospatial tasks.
Central Executive and Phonological Loop Deficits
The following four studies either focus on working memory deficits in children with learning deficiencies or focus on the overall indicator of working memory on math performance. The common result of each study indicates that deficits in central executive function impact math and reading comprehension in all children, especially those with disabilities, disorders, or difficulties. Deficits in the phonological loop also greatly impact math and reading performance. And deficits in the visual-spatial sketchpad are often a result of a developmental disorder and only impact children in control groups if they receive an overload of concurrent visual-spatial tasks.
Swanson and Kim (2007) examined three hundred and fifty-three early elementary children from Southern California public and private schools. They used simple math calculations to complex algebraic equations to test the mathematical skills of each child. Their focus was to determine if there is a relation between working memory and arithmetic and “to test the hypothesis that controlled attention underlies mathematical development” (Swanson and Kim, 2007). The results of their study determine that the central executive function of the WM is most influential in determining mathematical performance and that the phonological loop makes an impact with its storage capacity of numbers. The study also notes that children with a large WM capacity have the ability to store larger amounts of information without depleting the WM and would, therefore, have more resources available to complete the problem. The opposite is true for children with a smaller WM capacity. If the capacity to store information is smaller then, the amount of resources available to solve the problem will be less.
Similar to Swanson and Kim’s (2007) findings, Andersson and Lyxell (2007) discovered that deficits in the central executive and phonological loop play a major role in children with mathematical difficulties. Their study focused on which working memory functions affect mathematical skills in 31 10 year-olds with mathematical difficulties (MD), 37 10 year-olds with mathematical and reading difficulties (comorbid math and reading difficulties) and 47 age-matched and 50 younger controls. The results of their study propose that children with MDs have a deficit in the functioning of the central executive. These children have trouble with processing and storing numerical and verbal information. Children with comorbid math and reading difficulties have a central executive deficit that is even more extensive and extends into problems with the phonological loop: “simultaneous processing and storage of information, shifting, controlled retrieval of information from long-term memory, and general processing speed” (Andersson & Lyxell, 2007). All children tested relied on visual-spatial processing and numerous executive functions, whereas the older children and those with only MDs also used strategies that involved the phonological loop to solve problems. The study suggests that children with comorbid math and reading difficulties may be experiencing developmental delays in the fractionation of the working memory, which is a process I will discuss in another section of this review.
Packiam-Alloway (2007) focused her investigation of the working memory on the reading and mathematical skills of children suffering from developmental coordination disorder (DCD). These children experience more problems with visual-spatial functions than they do with phonological functions. According to Packiam-Alloway (2007), children with DCD display a noticeable lack in motor skills and visual tasks such as clumsiness, poor posture, confusion about which hand to use, difficulties throwing or catching a ball, reading and writing difficulties, an inability to hold a pen or pencil correctly, inaccuracies in estimating object size, and difficulties in locating an object’s position in space. Packiam-Alloway (2007) hypothesizes that since there is evidence that children with DCD have trouble with literacy, there may be a correlation between verbal and visuospatial memory impairments. 55 primary grade children from England participated in this study. They were tested in a variety of verbal and visuospatial areas, as well as in their literacy and numeracy. The results of the study conclude that deficits in visual-spatial working memory are worse than deficits in the phonological loop in children with DCD. Because the visual-spatial sketchpad impacts one’s ability to mentally rotate objects or follow the movement of objects, children with DCD performed extremely poorly on all visual-spatial tasks. In the meantime, these children also did not do well on the verbal tasks, either. Therefore, the combination of processing and storing information during either task, verbal or visual-spatial, negatively affects the outcome. Packiam-Alloway (2007) suggests an intervention program for children with DCD that involves teachers reducing excessive working memory loads in classroom activities and developing children’s own strategies for coping with memory failures.
Van der Molen, et al. (2007) provided another study dealing with children with a type of learning disability. However, this time the focus is on mild intellectual disabilities (MID). Van der Molen’s et al. (2007) study tested 100 children, 50 with MIDs ages 13-17, 25 typically developing children ages 13-16, and 25 typically developing children ages 8-12. They used a digit span and a non-word test to assess the function of the phonological loop. The results of these tests indicate that the children with MIDs performed significantly worse on both tests than the children in the control groups. They also used four tests to assess the function of the central executive. The results on these tests provide different conclusions. The children with MIDs performed significantly worse on all tests when compared to the control group of the same age. However, there was not much difference in performance between the children with MIDs and the control group ages 8-12. Van der Molen, et al. (2007) explained the results of both investigations to suggest that children with MIDs have trouble with storage in the phonological loop and have a developmental-delay in regards to the functioning of the central executive. Van der Molen, et al. (2007) suggested that the results of this study may indicate a need to increase visual information and reduce verbal information when teaching children with MIDs.
Swanson and Kim (2007) examined three hundred and fifty-three early elementary children from Southern California public and private schools. They used simple math calculations to complex algebraic equations to test the mathematical skills of each child. Their focus was to determine if there is a relation between working memory and arithmetic and “to test the hypothesis that controlled attention underlies mathematical development” (Swanson and Kim, 2007). The results of their study determine that the central executive function of the WM is most influential in determining mathematical performance and that the phonological loop makes an impact with its storage capacity of numbers. The study also notes that children with a large WM capacity have the ability to store larger amounts of information without depleting the WM and would, therefore, have more resources available to complete the problem. The opposite is true for children with a smaller WM capacity. If the capacity to store information is smaller then, the amount of resources available to solve the problem will be less.
Similar to Swanson and Kim’s (2007) findings, Andersson and Lyxell (2007) discovered that deficits in the central executive and phonological loop play a major role in children with mathematical difficulties. Their study focused on which working memory functions affect mathematical skills in 31 10 year-olds with mathematical difficulties (MD), 37 10 year-olds with mathematical and reading difficulties (comorbid math and reading difficulties) and 47 age-matched and 50 younger controls. The results of their study propose that children with MDs have a deficit in the functioning of the central executive. These children have trouble with processing and storing numerical and verbal information. Children with comorbid math and reading difficulties have a central executive deficit that is even more extensive and extends into problems with the phonological loop: “simultaneous processing and storage of information, shifting, controlled retrieval of information from long-term memory, and general processing speed” (Andersson & Lyxell, 2007). All children tested relied on visual-spatial processing and numerous executive functions, whereas the older children and those with only MDs also used strategies that involved the phonological loop to solve problems. The study suggests that children with comorbid math and reading difficulties may be experiencing developmental delays in the fractionation of the working memory, which is a process I will discuss in another section of this review.
Packiam-Alloway (2007) focused her investigation of the working memory on the reading and mathematical skills of children suffering from developmental coordination disorder (DCD). These children experience more problems with visual-spatial functions than they do with phonological functions. According to Packiam-Alloway (2007), children with DCD display a noticeable lack in motor skills and visual tasks such as clumsiness, poor posture, confusion about which hand to use, difficulties throwing or catching a ball, reading and writing difficulties, an inability to hold a pen or pencil correctly, inaccuracies in estimating object size, and difficulties in locating an object’s position in space. Packiam-Alloway (2007) hypothesizes that since there is evidence that children with DCD have trouble with literacy, there may be a correlation between verbal and visuospatial memory impairments. 55 primary grade children from England participated in this study. They were tested in a variety of verbal and visuospatial areas, as well as in their literacy and numeracy. The results of the study conclude that deficits in visual-spatial working memory are worse than deficits in the phonological loop in children with DCD. Because the visual-spatial sketchpad impacts one’s ability to mentally rotate objects or follow the movement of objects, children with DCD performed extremely poorly on all visual-spatial tasks. In the meantime, these children also did not do well on the verbal tasks, either. Therefore, the combination of processing and storing information during either task, verbal or visual-spatial, negatively affects the outcome. Packiam-Alloway (2007) suggests an intervention program for children with DCD that involves teachers reducing excessive working memory loads in classroom activities and developing children’s own strategies for coping with memory failures.
Van der Molen, et al. (2007) provided another study dealing with children with a type of learning disability. However, this time the focus is on mild intellectual disabilities (MID). Van der Molen’s et al. (2007) study tested 100 children, 50 with MIDs ages 13-17, 25 typically developing children ages 13-16, and 25 typically developing children ages 8-12. They used a digit span and a non-word test to assess the function of the phonological loop. The results of these tests indicate that the children with MIDs performed significantly worse on both tests than the children in the control groups. They also used four tests to assess the function of the central executive. The results on these tests provide different conclusions. The children with MIDs performed significantly worse on all tests when compared to the control group of the same age. However, there was not much difference in performance between the children with MIDs and the control group ages 8-12. Van der Molen, et al. (2007) explained the results of both investigations to suggest that children with MIDs have trouble with storage in the phonological loop and have a developmental-delay in regards to the functioning of the central executive. Van der Molen, et al. (2007) suggested that the results of this study may indicate a need to increase visual information and reduce verbal information when teaching children with MIDs.
Domain Related Issues and Fractionation
Bayliss et al. (2003) investigate the working memory capacity in two experiments, one with children ages 3-4 and another with college undergraduates. The results of both studies indicate that the storage capacity of the phonological loop and the visual-spatial sketchpad impact the results of complex span tasks. Another discovery of this investigation determines that the speed of an individual’s processing ability impacts performance on complex span tasks as well. Bayliss et al. (2003) concluded that the phonological loop and visual-spatial sketchpad store information separately from how they process information. Both the storing and the processing of information are supported by the central executive function. The phonological loop and the visual-spatial sketchpad are thus domain specific, in that they store pieces of information as independent functions. In order to process the information stored, however, the phonological loop and the visual-spatial sketchpad rely on the central executive, a domain general resource. Therefore, the processing and storing of information does not compete for space from the same resource.
The study of the fractionation of working memory by Tsujimoto, Kuwajima, and Sawaguchi (2007) helps to explain this domain specific and domain general discourse. According to the study, the lateral areas of the prefrontal cortex (LPFC) undergo an intense maturation process between the years 2-7. The density of the neurons lessens, dendrite trees expand, and gray and white matter increases. Studies done on adults show this fractionation of the brain when during visual and auditory working memory tasks, separate regions of the brain are activated. Meanwhile, other studies show that children's brains are not fractionated before age 4. More specifically, visuospatial fractionation seems to begin closer to ages 8-9. Further fractionation of the working memory into two domain specific functions, the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad, occurs throughout adolescence and enhances the cognitive abilities of children. The rate at which individual’s brains achieve fractionation varies. As domain specific functions, the PL and the VS have a greater capacity for encoding, processing, and storing. Also, the domain general central executive begins to aid in strategy selection, discipline, and discretionary actions.
Within their article, Tsujimoto, Kuwajima, and Sawaguchi (2007) cite other studies that suggest that the fractionation of the working memory does not take place until after 4 years old. As a result of their study, Tsujimoto, Kuwajima, and Sawaguchi (2007) found that visuospatial and auditory working memory and response inhibition functions are related to each other in children ages 5-6. On the other hand, in children ages 8-9, these functions are independent. The fractionating of neural systems for working memory in older children allows them to become more efficient when processing critical cognitive functions. Now that older children have developed the central executive function, they may use a wider variety of cognitive strategies that affect behavior as well as learning.
Andersson and Lyxell (2007) cite studies by Alloway and colleagues (in press) as well as Gathercole et al., (2004a) and Gatehercole et al., (2004b) that support the above findings. These references connect the last two ideas, domain specific and domain general with fractionation. The multi-component model of the working memory is concluded to contain domain-specific components for storage and a domain-general control component for processing. The findings indicate that this multi-component model is present as early as 4 years old in some individuals.
The study of the fractionation of working memory by Tsujimoto, Kuwajima, and Sawaguchi (2007) helps to explain this domain specific and domain general discourse. According to the study, the lateral areas of the prefrontal cortex (LPFC) undergo an intense maturation process between the years 2-7. The density of the neurons lessens, dendrite trees expand, and gray and white matter increases. Studies done on adults show this fractionation of the brain when during visual and auditory working memory tasks, separate regions of the brain are activated. Meanwhile, other studies show that children's brains are not fractionated before age 4. More specifically, visuospatial fractionation seems to begin closer to ages 8-9. Further fractionation of the working memory into two domain specific functions, the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad, occurs throughout adolescence and enhances the cognitive abilities of children. The rate at which individual’s brains achieve fractionation varies. As domain specific functions, the PL and the VS have a greater capacity for encoding, processing, and storing. Also, the domain general central executive begins to aid in strategy selection, discipline, and discretionary actions.
Within their article, Tsujimoto, Kuwajima, and Sawaguchi (2007) cite other studies that suggest that the fractionation of the working memory does not take place until after 4 years old. As a result of their study, Tsujimoto, Kuwajima, and Sawaguchi (2007) found that visuospatial and auditory working memory and response inhibition functions are related to each other in children ages 5-6. On the other hand, in children ages 8-9, these functions are independent. The fractionating of neural systems for working memory in older children allows them to become more efficient when processing critical cognitive functions. Now that older children have developed the central executive function, they may use a wider variety of cognitive strategies that affect behavior as well as learning.
Andersson and Lyxell (2007) cite studies by Alloway and colleagues (in press) as well as Gathercole et al., (2004a) and Gatehercole et al., (2004b) that support the above findings. These references connect the last two ideas, domain specific and domain general with fractionation. The multi-component model of the working memory is concluded to contain domain-specific components for storage and a domain-general control component for processing. The findings indicate that this multi-component model is present as early as 4 years old in some individuals.
Unusual Study, Unusual Findings
Sansavini, et al. (2007) investigated the impact of very early preterm birth on phonological working memory abilities and on grammatical development. They considered biological and social factors in order to determine whether or not socio-economic status and level of education had an effect on the development of linguistic and cognitive development in children of preterm births. The results of this study show that all preterms have more and persisting difficulties in linguistic, cognitive, and phonological working memory development up to 3.5 years old when compared to fullterm children. After 3.5 years, however, the social factor of the mother’s level of education impacts linguistic and cognitive development in preterms. These babies may then (after 3.5) begin to reach full learning potential and may experience no repercussions of their preterm birth learning deficits in early age. This study also showed that once all children reach 3.5 years old and beyond, the mother’s level of education begins to impact language and cognitive development regardless of fullterm or preterm birth. Meanwhile, the father’s level of education had no impact on the child’s development in this study. Sansavini, et al. (2007) also found that screenings of all preterm children need to be done before 4 years old to begin an intervention to help the children recover from and prevent the development of more critical difficulties in cognitive development as they get older.
This study connects to Jean Piaget's Cognitive Constructivism. From the ages 2-7, children are in the preoperational stage of development. They begin to have a grasp of language and problem solving skills, asking "why" about everything. It makes sense that the study would conclude in this way. If babies' mothers are educated, then, they most likely are aware of the importance of reading with, talking with, and playing games with their children, etc. On the other hand the study raises a stereotypical point that the father's educational level has no bearing on the child's cognitive development. It seems that the schema of the mother as the child-rearing parent and the father as the bread-winner tests out in this study.
Conclusion and Reflection
Working memory investigation provides us with more specific reasons why we learn the way we do. In understanding the way our mind encodes, stores, and processes information, we may enhance our own learning experiences, and most importantly as teachers, whether parents, nurses, or classroom educators, we may develop strategies to exercise the minds of our “students.”
Regardless the intellectual level of the individual, working memory strategies may benefit everyone. People with MIDs, CDC, MDs, symptoms of preterm birth, etc. require educators to adapt their methods to accommodate their specific learning needs. However, since the brain is so efficient (and eager to cut corners), we must continue to exercise all parts of the working memory in all students to keep the brain at its top working capacity. Therefore, each of these studies that focus on children with learning difficulties, mentally or physiologically, not only benefit us in regards to providing strategies to help certain needy students, but also provide eye-opening techniques to create more dynamic learning environments for all students.
My research on working memory has allowed me to understand students whom I might consider lazy or attention-craving. They may not possess the schema for proper classroom behavior or the script for how to study or take notes or read. When children act out, they are attention-seeking, but now, I understand the kinds of attention they may be seeking. They may have working memory overload and be unable to encode, process, store or retrieve anymore information. Also, students and I need to be aware of their metacognitive processes. Once they and I figure out how they learn, we can work on individual problem areas.
Another section of the textbook that really opened my eyes is the section on semantic memory. Mixing up teaching strategies, not just in providing a variety of activities and in using a variety of visual media, requires varying methods from the prototype approach to the exemplar approach. Also, the idea of bilingual education that Doug brought up in his and Amy's workshop on semantic memory really caught my attention. I hope that in the very near future the results of the studies that prove the importance early bilingual education catch on in the grade schools.
This study connects to Jean Piaget's Cognitive Constructivism. From the ages 2-7, children are in the preoperational stage of development. They begin to have a grasp of language and problem solving skills, asking "why" about everything. It makes sense that the study would conclude in this way. If babies' mothers are educated, then, they most likely are aware of the importance of reading with, talking with, and playing games with their children, etc. On the other hand the study raises a stereotypical point that the father's educational level has no bearing on the child's cognitive development. It seems that the schema of the mother as the child-rearing parent and the father as the bread-winner tests out in this study.
Conclusion and Reflection
Working memory investigation provides us with more specific reasons why we learn the way we do. In understanding the way our mind encodes, stores, and processes information, we may enhance our own learning experiences, and most importantly as teachers, whether parents, nurses, or classroom educators, we may develop strategies to exercise the minds of our “students.”
Regardless the intellectual level of the individual, working memory strategies may benefit everyone. People with MIDs, CDC, MDs, symptoms of preterm birth, etc. require educators to adapt their methods to accommodate their specific learning needs. However, since the brain is so efficient (and eager to cut corners), we must continue to exercise all parts of the working memory in all students to keep the brain at its top working capacity. Therefore, each of these studies that focus on children with learning difficulties, mentally or physiologically, not only benefit us in regards to providing strategies to help certain needy students, but also provide eye-opening techniques to create more dynamic learning environments for all students.
My research on working memory has allowed me to understand students whom I might consider lazy or attention-craving. They may not possess the schema for proper classroom behavior or the script for how to study or take notes or read. When children act out, they are attention-seeking, but now, I understand the kinds of attention they may be seeking. They may have working memory overload and be unable to encode, process, store or retrieve anymore information. Also, students and I need to be aware of their metacognitive processes. Once they and I figure out how they learn, we can work on individual problem areas.
Another section of the textbook that really opened my eyes is the section on semantic memory. Mixing up teaching strategies, not just in providing a variety of activities and in using a variety of visual media, requires varying methods from the prototype approach to the exemplar approach. Also, the idea of bilingual education that Doug brought up in his and Amy's workshop on semantic memory really caught my attention. I hope that in the very near future the results of the studies that prove the importance early bilingual education catch on in the grade schools.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
References
Andersson, U. & Lyxell, B. (2007). Working memory deficit in children with mathematical difficulties: a general or specific deficit? Journal of Experimental Psychology 96, 197-228.
Baddeley, A. (2001). Is working memory still working? American Psychological Association, 56, 851-864.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423.
Bayliss, D. M., et al. (2003). The complexities of complex span: explaining
individual differences in working memory in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 71-92.
Kemps, E., De Rammelaere, S., & Desmet, T. (2000). The development of working memory: exploring the complementarity of two models. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 89-100.
Ornstein, P. A. & Haden, C. A. (2001). Memory development or the development of memory? American Psychological Society, 10, 202-205.
Packiam-Alloway, T. (2007). Working memory, reading, and mathematical skills in
children with developmental coordination disorder. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 20-36.
Sansavini, A., et al. (2007). Are early grammatical and phonological working memory
abilities affected by preterm birth? Journal of Communication Disorders, 40, 239-256.
Swanson, L. & Kim, K. (2007). Working memory, short-term memory, and naming
speech as predictors of children’s mathematical performance. Intelligence, 35, 151- 168.
Tsujimoto, S., Kuwajima, M. & Sawaguchi, T. (2007). Developmental fractionation of
working memory and response inhibition during childhood. Experimental Psychology, 54, 30-37.
Van der Molen, et al. (2007). Verbal working memory in children with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51(Pt. 2), 162-169.
Baddeley, A. (2001). Is working memory still working? American Psychological Association, 56, 851-864.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423.
Bayliss, D. M., et al. (2003). The complexities of complex span: explaining
individual differences in working memory in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 71-92.
Kemps, E., De Rammelaere, S., & Desmet, T. (2000). The development of working memory: exploring the complementarity of two models. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 89-100.
Ornstein, P. A. & Haden, C. A. (2001). Memory development or the development of memory? American Psychological Society, 10, 202-205.
Packiam-Alloway, T. (2007). Working memory, reading, and mathematical skills in
children with developmental coordination disorder. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 20-36.
Sansavini, A., et al. (2007). Are early grammatical and phonological working memory
abilities affected by preterm birth? Journal of Communication Disorders, 40, 239-256.
Swanson, L. & Kim, K. (2007). Working memory, short-term memory, and naming
speech as predictors of children’s mathematical performance. Intelligence, 35, 151- 168.
Tsujimoto, S., Kuwajima, M. & Sawaguchi, T. (2007). Developmental fractionation of
working memory and response inhibition during childhood. Experimental Psychology, 54, 30-37.
Van der Molen, et al. (2007). Verbal working memory in children with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51(Pt. 2), 162-169.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Monday, June 4, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)