Evaluate Baddeley's theory of the Phonological Loop in light of either one or both of the following papers:
Lovatt, P.J., Avons, S. E. & Masterson, J. (2002). Output decay in immediate serial recall: Speech time revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 46 (1), 227-243.
Lovatt, P.J., Avons, S. E. & Masterson, J. (2000). The word-length effect and disyllabic words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 53A, 1-22.
Baddeley's phonological loop paradigm has led to an utter appreciation, as well as to scepticism. The simplicity of his model is indeed very tempting, given the complexity of cognitive science. However, in Baddeley's case, major controversies have arisen in relation to his model of the phonological loop. One of them is described by Lovatt, Avons and Masterson (2000). The evaluation will therefore base itself on this paper. For this, it is necessary to first give a description of Baddeley's phonological loop and the importance of the word-length effect. The second part will focus on the actual analysis of the theory, the experimentation, and will offer a brief discussion.
It is generally accepted, within the psychological field and elsewhere, that there is a cognitive function called the working memory (WM). Baddeley (1986) has divided the WM into three components: the central executive and its two 'slave systems', the visual-spatial sketchpad (VSS) and the phonological loop (PL).
According to Baddeley, the PL consists of a passive phonological store and of an articulatory control process (ACP).
The phonological store holds auditorily presented verbal information and is subjected to time decay. In principle, the ACP's rehearsal mechanism could maintain the information indefinitely in the phonological store if the time taken to rehearse is kept within the decay time (about 1.6 to 1.8s). Another function of the ACP is the transcoding of visual input, after which this latter accesses the phonological store. Consequently, Baddeley claims there is a correlation between speech rate and memory span, the recall for short words would be then greater than for the long words, as short words would be rehearsed more quickly. This theory is called the word-length effect and represents a cornerstone for the evidence of Baddeley's phonological loop. Yet the recent findings of Lovatt et al. (2000) demonstrate that there is not any difference in recall between short and long words, thus they question the phonological loop itself.
It has to be observed that Baddeley's tripartite model of working-memory is recurrent in cognitive literature. He is extensively quoted and referenced to, and his studies of the working-memory are innumerable. In addition, the structure of the working memory model he proposes is parsimonious. This would be very advantageous, taken into account the complexity and abstraction of cognition. However, this over-simplicity could be questioned, especially when the PL is claimed to include such a variety of functions and processes: "the simple model fails to reflect the complexity of 'real' cognition (...). A broader application of the model would require the addition of extra subcomponents or processes, removing the original virtue of simplicity and potentially creating a less coherent model than one that began life as a complex model"( Andrade, 2001). Baddeley's model of the working memory has been subjected to constant changes, thus bringing numerous criticisms; or the other way around. The criticisms brought forward by other researchers could be seen as having greatly contributed in the refinement of the model. For instance, what is called today the phonological loop (1990) was at first the phonemic buffer in 1974, then the articulatory loop in 1986. Although one of his colleagues, Andrade (2001), claims "the essence of the model has been retained" (p.11), it is difficult to follow up with the modifications. Also, the operationality of Baddeley's model is not always clear: rehearsal is somewhat obscure as it is only "assumed to be a process resembling covert speech" (Lovatt et al., 2000. pp.2). This is an important part of the PL and it is not clear whether it is covert speech (that one could assume to be articulatory) or an unconscious or not fully conscious process that occurs in around 500 milliseconds.
Lovatt, P.J., Avons, S. E. & Masterson, J. (2002). Output decay in immediate serial recall: Speech time revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 46 (1), 227-243.
Lovatt, P.J., Avons, S. E. & Masterson, J. (2000). The word-length effect and disyllabic words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 53A, 1-22.
Baddeley's phonological loop paradigm has led to an utter appreciation, as well as to scepticism. The simplicity of his model is indeed very tempting, given the complexity of cognitive science. However, in Baddeley's case, major controversies have arisen in relation to his model of the phonological loop. One of them is described by Lovatt, Avons and Masterson (2000). The evaluation will therefore base itself on this paper. For this, it is necessary to first give a description of Baddeley's phonological loop and the importance of the word-length effect. The second part will focus on the actual analysis of the theory, the experimentation, and will offer a brief discussion.
It is generally accepted, within the psychological field and elsewhere, that there is a cognitive function called the working memory (WM). Baddeley (1986) has divided the WM into three components: the central executive and its two 'slave systems', the visual-spatial sketchpad (VSS) and the phonological loop (PL).
According to Baddeley, the PL consists of a passive phonological store and of an articulatory control process (ACP).
The phonological store holds auditorily presented verbal information and is subjected to time decay. In principle, the ACP's rehearsal mechanism could maintain the information indefinitely in the phonological store if the time taken to rehearse is kept within the decay time (about 1.6 to 1.8s). Another function of the ACP is the transcoding of visual input, after which this latter accesses the phonological store. Consequently, Baddeley claims there is a correlation between speech rate and memory span, the recall for short words would be then greater than for the long words, as short words would be rehearsed more quickly. This theory is called the word-length effect and represents a cornerstone for the evidence of Baddeley's phonological loop. Yet the recent findings of Lovatt et al. (2000) demonstrate that there is not any difference in recall between short and long words, thus they question the phonological loop itself.
It has to be observed that Baddeley's tripartite model of working-memory is recurrent in cognitive literature. He is extensively quoted and referenced to, and his studies of the working-memory are innumerable. In addition, the structure of the working memory model he proposes is parsimonious. This would be very advantageous, taken into account the complexity and abstraction of cognition. However, this over-simplicity could be questioned, especially when the PL is claimed to include such a variety of functions and processes: "the simple model fails to reflect the complexity of 'real' cognition (...). A broader application of the model would require the addition of extra subcomponents or processes, removing the original virtue of simplicity and potentially creating a less coherent model than one that began life as a complex model"( Andrade, 2001). Baddeley's model of the working memory has been subjected to constant changes, thus bringing numerous criticisms; or the other way around. The criticisms brought forward by other researchers could be seen as having greatly contributed in the refinement of the model. For instance, what is called today the phonological loop (1990) was at first the phonemic buffer in 1974, then the articulatory loop in 1986. Although one of his colleagues, Andrade (2001), claims "the essence of the model has been retained" (p.11), it is difficult to follow up with the modifications. Also, the operationality of Baddeley's model is not always clear: rehearsal is somewhat obscure as it is only "assumed to be a process resembling covert speech" (Lovatt et al., 2000. pp.2). This is an important part of the PL and it is not clear whether it is covert speech (that one could assume to be articulatory) or an unconscious or not fully conscious process that occurs in around 500 milliseconds.
