Memory function and short-term store as a psychological construct : Implications of a working memory framework(Multidisciplinary perspectives on human memory,Symposium 2 at the 24th Annual Meeting)

(1)

The Japanese Psychonomic Society

NII-Electronic Library Service

The JapanesePsychonomic Society

7'he1mpanese]ournalqfPs),chonomicScience 20e6,Vol.25,No,1,53-60

Leetures

Memory

function

and

construct

Implicationsshort-term

store

as a

_{psychological}

of

a

working

memory

framework

Satoru

SAITo

K))oto

University*

Itis_generally

believed

that

memory stores as psychological constructs are

distinguishable

from othercognitive mechanisms, such as language processing systems.

One

such memory system might

be

ashort-term store

(STS),

which isa_putative construct assumed

to

retain small amounts of information

for

a shert period of time. Inthisarticle,

I

discusstwo ]inesof research in relation to thisconstruct.

One

indicates

that some data inthe working memory literaturecan

be

explained without _postulating a

STS,

suggesting itsredundancy inour cognitive system, and the other suggests the

importance

oS

STS

in

explaining observed phenomena,

The

first

lineincludesstudies on working memory span

tests

and the $econd includesthose on therole of thephonological loop

in

]ong-term

learning.

I

distjnguish

two situations: one

in

which retention over the short term is required and one in which we must assume thepresence of

STS,

a

dedicated

system fortemporary storage over the short term.

Key

words: working memory, short-terrn memory, short-term store, working memory span test,

phonological loop

``Mitorre _has _no

particutar

_obligation _to

honor

_any

taxonomy,so we empect to

find

cases where our distinc-tions are

blurred.

ThePrimarlv value

of

thistaxonomy isas a concoptual

framework

for

formulating

h)ipothe-ses about where the mop'or

determinants

of

c(rgnitive behaviormay lie"

(Elman,

Bates,

Johnson,

Harmiloff-Smith,

PrisL

&

Plunkett,

1996,_p.24).

A long held beliefamong psychologists isthat

memory

functions

are separate

from

other human

cognitive functions,such as language production,

perception, visuospatial processing, and thinking,

This assumption that memory systems as

psycho-logicalconstructs are distinguishable

from

other

cognitive $ystems

has

dominated

memory research to

date,

and has ledto the coneeption of separate systems of cognitive _processing,

One

of the most

widely accepted memory systems of this

kind

is

the

short-term store

(STS),

a _putative construct assumed to retain small arnounts of

inforrnation

for a short

* _Department _of

_Cognitive

_Psychology

in

Educa-'

tion,

Kyoto

University,

Sakyo-ku,

Kyote

8501

periodof time,

Iexarnine two schools ofthought

in

relation to this construct.

One

suggests theredundancy of the con-cept of a

STS

in

the

human

cognitive systern,

indicat-ing that $ome of data

in

the literatureon working

memory could be explained without postulating a

STS.

The

other lineof research asserts the

impor-tance

of the

STS

in

explaining observed

phenomena.

The former lineincludesstudies on working memory span testsand the lattercontains studies on therole of thephonolegical

loop

in

long-term

learning.

Wbrlaing

memory span testsand

STS

Working

memory is,by definition,assumed toplay a crucial role

in

many

kinds

of cognitive activity

<Baddeley,

1986;Baddeley

&

Hitch,1974;

Just

&

Car-penter,

1992).

Inother words, working memory

func-tion

is

in

theservice of complex cognition

(Miyake

&

Shah, 1999),

This

central feature of the working

memory concept isreflected

in

the

direction

of

work-ing

rnemory research, which uses so-called working

memory span testsas a research tool,

One

of the

most important characteristics of these testsisthat they

impose

Japanese

(2)

54 The

Japanese

Journal

of P$ychonomic Science

_Vol,

_25,

_No.

1

ments. For example, inthe reading span test

(Dane-man & Carpenter,

1980),

_{,participants}

arc required to read aseries ofsentences aloud or verify the truthful-ness of _the sentences

(the

_processing requirernent) while trying toremember

the

last

word of each sen-tence or some other targetwords forlaterrecall

(the

storage requirement).

Ever

since Daneman and

Car-penter

(1980)

demonstrated

thatthistaskcan predict

individual

differences in reading comprehen$ion

ability better

than

digit

or word span tasks

<see

Daneman

&

Merikle,

1996, for a meta-analytic re-view), the reading span

test

and

its

variants

(Le.

working memory span tests),such as counting span

(Case,

Kurland,

&

Goldberg,

1982),operation span

(Turner

&

Engle,

1989},and spatial span

(Shah

&

Miyake, 1996),have been widely used as indicesof

working memory capacity

(Miyake

& Shah, 1999).

Until

recently, theoretical accounts of working

memory span testshave been dominated

by

the con-cept of resource sharing

According

tothistype of

hypothesis

_(e.g,,

the resource sharing hypothesis

pro-posed by

Daneman

&

Carpenter,

1980),

a working

memory span testmeasures the functionalcapacity of resources that can be

fiexibly

allocated between processing and storage activities. For example,

if

an individual

is

skilled at language _processing, perform-ing the concurrent _processing requirement of the

reading span testconsumes a small amount of

re-sources, enabling

him

or her to allocate a

large

amount of the

leftover

resource$

for

the

maintenance of targetwords. Incontrast, ifa _person

is

not skilled

at Ianguage _precessing,_performing a

language

proc-essing task consumes a

lot

of resources and

leaves

only a small ameunt available

to

support thestorage

of targetwords. Thus, working memory span

per-formance has been assumed toreflect

the

amount of

resources one

has

available after allthe processing requlrements are met.

Several

recent

theoretical

_proposals

have

_provided

alternative accounts of working memory span

per-fermance that do not necessarily invoke _the

idea

of

resource sharing

{e,g.

Engle,

Kane,

&

Tuholski,

1999; MacDonald &

Christiansen,

2002; Maehara & Saito, 2006; Saito & Miyake, 2004;

Stoltzfus,

Hasher,

&

Zacks,

1996;

Towse

&

Hitch, 1995;

Towse,

Hitch,& Hutton, 1998,2000;Waters

&

Caplaa

1996).Most of them, however, are still

based

on a core assumption, which isalso at the root of the resource sharing hypothesis, that memory

items

are `'actively"

main-tained

during

_performance on working memory span

tests.Ithas been assumed thatinthe reading span

test,

for

exarnple, memory items _presented earlier in the span listare successfully recalled enly when those items are constantly

in

an active state

during

reading of

the

later

sentences

in

the span

list

(Figure

1);inother worcls. when those items are

in

working rnemory, Thus, thenotion of "active"

maintenance of memory items isacentral tenetintheoriesof

work-'lng

memory span tests.

A

recent study

by

Cowan

et al.

(2003L

inwhich a response-time analysis was conducted on working memory span _performance

in

children,

has

cast

doubt on thisassumption. They found that recall

response _times were longer in sentence-based span tests,such as reading and

listening

span tests.than inother span tests

(Le,,

counting span and

digit

span

Recatl

Recal1

Recall

Sentencel Sentence2 Sentence3

Fjgure 1, A schematic

illustration

of an activu maintenance view of working memory span performance;

an exampie of

3-sentence

condition of the reading span test.According to _thisview, mernory items

presented earlicr

in

the span listare successfully recalled only when those

_items

are constantly inan active state

during

reading of the

later

sentences

in

thespan ltst,

(3)

S.

SAITo:

Memory

function

and short-term store as a psychological construct

55 Retrieval

Forgetting

,

.,,,iwm,,,va/m,m/n,/ma,,//'ww,,,,n･,ta':},-

_Recal]

･.･.,.,,-mmawwrwrm}ww}th#tw･

_Reca]L

Recall

Sentencel Sentence2 Sentence3

Figure

2,

A schematic

illustration

of a retrieval-based account of working memory span performance;

an example of 3-sentence condition of the reading span test.

According

to this vicw, participants

forgetsome of targetrnemory items during reading of sentences and then retrieve those

itcms

inthe

recall period, suggesting thatthey might not continuous]y maintain all targetiternsinan active statc

during

reading span performance,

tests),This suggests that _participants might not

continuously maintain all target

items

in

an active state during,forexample, reading span _{perforrnance.}

Rather,

they

might "forgeV' some of the target

mem-ory items

during

reading of the sentences and then

"retrieve"

those items intherecall _period

(Figure

2).

Cowan

et al,

(2003)

suggested that participantsuse the sentences presented

during

the processing phase

of the task as retrieval cues to recal] the target

worcls. This

idea

has

been supported

by

other data showing that _participantsmake intrusionerrors

by

recalling nontarget words

from

_processingsentences within a

list

(e.g.

Chiappe, Hasher,

&

SiegeL

2000;

De

Beni,Palladino,

Pazzaglia,

&

Cornoldi,

1998;'Fried-rnan

&

Miyake,

2004).

Saito

& Ishii

_(2004>

proposed a sirnilar idea;they examined

individual

differencesin performance on

cued recal! testsand language comprehension.

In

theirstudy, _participantswere required to_perform a

language comprehension test,a reading span test,a

word span test,and two typesof cued recall test,

One

type

of cucd recall

test,

developed by Haarmann,

Davelaar,

& Usher

(2003),

used a semantic category cue.

The

other typeof testwas newly developed and used a color cue

to

recall a

1ist

of words.

Saito

&

Ishii

(2O04)

found thatthe reading span scores were

corre-lated

more strongly than the word span scores with

'

the

language

comprehension seores, replicating findings

from

previous studies

(Daneman

& Merikle, 1996,

for

a review}. Furthermore, recall scores on a

category-cue testand those on a color-cue

test

were

both significantly correlated with reading span and

language comprehension scores. Partialcorrelation

analyses revealed thata

lot

of variances were shared

among reading span scores,

the

category-cue test

scores, and the color-cue testscores and that these variances could _predict

the

language comprehension scores. From these data,they proposed the

retn'eval-based

account of working memory span _{perforrmance,}

which assumes thatindividual

differences

in

work-ing rnemory span are partly driven

by

individual

differences

in efficiency when retrieving memory

items

from

!ong-term memory,

Miyake

& Friedman

(2004)

also emphasized the importance of retrieval

abilities

in

performing working memory span tests.

The

retrieval-based account of working memory span

is

similar

to

the

long-term

working memory

hypothcsis

{Ericsson

& Kintsch,

1995)

in the sense that eMcient retrieval of memory items

from

long-term memory contributes toworking memory span

perforrnance

(see

Kintsch, 1998),

However.

they

differ

in

two ways.

First,

while the !ong-term

ing

memory hypothesis assurnes domain specificity

in

theability of ethcient retrieval, theretrieval-based

account

does

not include such an assumption

(Miyake

&

Friedman,

2004,provided evidence forthe

doinain

generalityof retrieval ability).

Second,

the

long-term working memory framework still

holds

the concept of a

"short-term"

working memory, which can retain retrievat cues over the short term,

but the retrieval-based account

does

not need

to

assume thepresence of ashort-term retention system

(4)

56 The

Japanese

Journal

of Psychonomic Science

_VoL

25,

No,

1 <Le,,

a

STS).

Although

furtherempirical evidence isneeded

for

the retrieval-based account on working memory

span _performance, a _possibilityexists that

it

is

not

neces$ary to _po$tulate _the _existence _of _a _STS _to

explain working memory span

_performance.

The

_phonotogical

loop STS. and

long-terwi

_tearning

It

is

ironic

that advances

in

working memory

re-search have indicated _the redundancy of the

STS

rather than the

importance

of itsinvolvement _in

working memory span

tests,

in

which short-term

retention of information

is

required. An equally

paradoxical

lineof reasoning has

been

_occurring

in

studies of the phonological loop,a subsystem ina working memory model

{Baddeley.

_1986;_Baddeley _&

Hitch, 1974),which

is

assumed tobe a short-term

retention system forverbal material.

As stated

in

the introduction,memory researchers

have

been

basing

their

theories on the

separate-system view, which assumes a di$tinction

between

memory and language systems.

However,

some

di-chotomies

based

on this view

(e.g.

the distinction

between long-term store and short-term store or

more _generally

between

memory and

language

sys-tems)

_have

_been

repeatedly criticized

(e.g.

MacKay,

Burke,

&

Stewart,

1998;

Nairne,

2002).

For

example,

MacKay

et aL

(1998)

who examined the

language

abilities of

H.M.

an amnesic _patient who

had

been

thought

to

have

"pure"

memory

deficit,

emphasized

theimportance of an

integrated-systems

approach as

opposed tothe separate-system _view,

However,

MacKay

et aL

(1998)

suggested that an

exception totheircritique was working memory re-search, especially studies on the _phonological loop. Infact,over

four

decades,evidence

has

accumulated fora strong

link

between

the

immediate

serial recall of verbal material, which

is

be]ieved

toreflect pho-nological loop

functioning,

and the_processes

respon-sible

for

speech perception and _production,

Conrad

(1964)

observed that the intrusionerrors inan

imrne-diateserial recall task

for

visually _presented

conso-nants were acoustically similar to the

items

they

replaced, resembling the auditory _perceptual errors

found

when consonants were _presented in noise,

rather than visual errors,

Moreover,

Ellis

_(1980),

when analyzing

intrusion

errors, noted a similarity between errors in imrnediate serial recall

&

slips of

the

tongue.

More

recently,

Saito

and Baddeley

₍₂₀₀₄₎

reported significant correlations between

digit

span and experimentally

induced

speech errors,

These and other related data

led

toan ideathatthe

phonelogical loop

function

might

be

supported

by

a

`'pseudo-memory

system," which isdevelopecl as a

"by-product"

of thespeech _processing system, This

pseudo-memory view iscompatible with theresults

of a neuroimaging approach to the _phonelogical

loop, A PET

(positron

emission

temography)

study

(Paulesu,

Frith,

&

Frackowiak,

1993}

indicatedthat

the activities of the_phonological loopwere

localized

in

the leftsupramarginal gyrus and in

Broca's

area,

The former area seems to be

involved

_in speech

perception,whereas

the

latter

is

involved

inspeech

production. Furthermore, another PET approach has

directlysupported therelationship between the pho-nological

Ioop

and language systems; areas thatwere activated during the _phonolegical _loop action were

also working during

language

comprehension and

production

(Price,

Wise,

Watson,

Petterson,

Howard,

&

Franckowiak, 1994; Smith

&

Jonides,

1997

[re-view]; Vallar,2006,

for

arecent review of

neuroimag-ing

and neuropsychological studies).

These studies

indicated

that

_phonological _loop

functioning

might have emerged, at least_partly,

due

tothe actions of language

_processing

systems.

The

activities of the_phonological loop_may _simply _refiect the activation of the _processes involved inlanguage

processing, representing an

incidental

feature of a

general system rather than the _principal

_function

of a specifically

dedicated

_STS, _This _view

is

_consistent with theresult from a neuropsychological study

by

Allport

(1984),

which reported subtle deficits

in

speech _processing

in

a _patient who.had _previously been thought to

have

a _pure _phonological short-term memory

deficit.

Allport

₍₁₉₈₄₎

interpreted

the

data

in

terms of

the

_proposed _Iink _between

the

mecha-nisms of speech _perception and short-term rnemory,

However, other _patients with an equally impaired

phono]ogical loop

do

not appear to

have

speech

per-ception or _production

deficits

(Shallice,

1988;

Vallar

(5)

TheJapanesePsychonomic Society

S.SAITo:Memory functionand short-termstore as a _{psychologica]} construct 57

&

Baddeley,

1984;

Vallar

&

Sha]lice,

1990),while

patients with substantial speech perception

deficits

may have relatively well _preserved _phonological

loop

functions

(Baddeley

&

Wilson,

1993).

Therefore.

a simple identificationof the _phonological

loop

within speech _processes is_probably an oversimplifi-cation, although

it

is

likelythatconsiderable overlap occurs

in

theprocesses involved,with the result that

an increaseinknowledge of one area

Ce.g.

Ianguage

processing)islikelytobe of considerable relevance totheother

(e.g,,

short-term/working memory).

One

example of thisrelationship

is

the

impact

of iong-terrnlinguisticknowledge inboth children and adults on theirshort-term memory task_performance, For example, adults typically$how

better

immediate serial recall _perforrnance

for

words than nonwords

<Hulme,

Maughan,

&

Brown, 1991).

This

lexicality

effect isbelieved

to

partlyrefiect the long-term

pho-nological

knowledge

o[ a native

language

(Gather-cole, Frankish, Pickering,& Peaker, 1999; Thorn

&

Gathercole, 1999). Sirnilarfindings have been

re-ported

in

developmental

studies, which showed for

example, that children's repetition performance of nonwords isbetter fornonwords with a high

word-likeness

value than those with a Iow wordlikeness value

(Gathercole,

Willis,

Emslie, & Baddeley, 1991; Roodenry

&

Hinton,

2002).

The

wordlikeness values of nonwords are believedtoreflect adults' sublexical

knowledge

of

the

language;

thus,

forexample, non-words with a high wordlikeness value have phonol-ogical structures thatare similar tophonotactic

pat-terns

ofreal words inthatlanguage.

Therefore,

it

is

assumed thatthewordlikeness effect

{a

differencein

memory _performance

between

high wordlike and

low wordlike nonwords) represents the extent to

which children can rely on their_phonological knowl-edge ofthe

language.

In

fact,

the

size of

the

wordlike-ness effect increaseswith age

between

4-

and

5-years

old, suggesting that the effect reflects

knowledge

acquired throughout development

{Gathercole,

1995; see

Yuzawa

&

Saito,

2006

for

recent

discussions).

These and other data suggest that performance on

short-term memory tasks isaugmented by long-term

knowledge of the _phonological structure of the

language.

Itisimportant to note that the relatiobship

be-tween short-term memory and

long-term

phonologi-cal knowledge isbidirectional;substantia]

influences

oi $hort-term memory capacity occur in]anguage acquisition, while long-terrn knowledge impacts short-terrn memory performancc. Ithas already

been

established that children's ability to repeat non-words can _predict the speed of vocabulary acquisi-tion,particularlyat an earlier stage ef

development,

i,e,,

around age

4 (e.g.,

Gathercole

&

Baddeley,

1990;

Jarrold,

Baddeley, Hewes, Leeke,

&

Phillips, 2004 forfurther discussions).

Although a very strong relationship exists

be-tween short-term memory and

long-term

phenologi-cal knowledge,

it

is

probably necessary to

distin-guishbetween two separate systems thatsupport the

short-term and the

long-term

retention mechanisms, respectively. A critical aspect here isthatthe acqui-sition of thelong-term knowledge seerns torequire a separate short-term retention system

(i.e.,

STS)

for

two reasons: the

first

one

is

theoretical,and the

sec-ond

is

based on computational and experimental

evidence.

It

has

been

widely accepted that memory

consoli-dation

mechanisms might

be

necessary

for

long-term

learning and that some time isrequired tostabilize

long-term

storage. During

the

censolidation _period, some retention mechanisms, which must

be

sepa-rated from the long-term storage mechanisms, have to work at temporarily maintaining the information to be consolidated

{see

Crowder, 1993).,This reten-tioncan

be

for

theshort term

(i,e,,

it

is

not necessary toretain theinformation forthelongterm),and must be achieved very _quickly inorder tosupport

consoli-dation.

The

rapid encoding of new experiences, which

is

distinct

from

long-term

memory encoding, is_postulated insome models of learningand memory

(e.g.

Baddeley,

Gathercole,

&

Papagno, 1998;Brown

&

Hulme,

1996; MacClelland,

_McNaughton,

_&

O'Reilly,

1995)

and thisretention mechanism could beregarded as a function of the STS.

Computer

simulation studies on

language

acquisi-tionstructures

have

highlighted

the advantages of sett{ng a capacity limitationon holding

information

(6)

58 The

_Japanese

_Journal

of PsychonomlcScience

VoL

25,

No,

1 {e.g.

Elman, 1993).

Several

similar ideashave

been

presented

in

addition te

Elmanis

(1993)

formulation

stating "the _importance

of starting smalL" They are

based

on computer simulations and/or

behavieral

data:

the "less

is

rnore"

hypothesis

(Newport,

1990)

and the "capacity-based"

explanation of language acquisition

(e.g.

Cochran, McDonald, & Parault, 1999).Allof these models emphasize the advantages

in

restricting the amount of

input

information

to

Iong-term knowledge structures during language

acquisition, Such a system, which acts as a _gateway

to

Iimit

input

into

the

long-term

memory system and can retain

inforrnation

over the short-term is,by

definition,a STS or working memory

(e.g.,

Kareev,

1995; Kareev, Lieberman. & Lev, 1997). Although

limiting

input

anto

the

long-term

memory system

may not require a

STS,

postulating a

STS

seems to

be thesimplest way to fulfillthe capacity limitation

in

language

acquisition _processes, Su7nmaT)/and conciusions

In the

first

part of thisarticle, Ireviewed recent studies on working memory span _tests,cmphasizing the role of

long-term

memory retrieval

in

working memory span testsand suggesting the obscurity of

the distinctionbetween short-terrn store and

long-term store.

Studies

on working memory span

have

ironically

indicated

thatthe

STS

as a psychological construct rnight be redundant inour cognitive sys-tems. However, ithas also been argued that the STS remains

important

for

explaining phenomena

in

two

research areas: the phonological

loop

and

language

acquisition. Although at first_glance,the boundary

between ashort-term store and languages _processing

systems

in

the phonological

]oop

literature

would seem unclear, some neuropsychological studies have

demonstrated the distinctionbetween _phonological

loop functioning and

]anguage

_processing,

Further-more, ithas been theoreticallyand cmpirjcally

con-firmed

that the

STS

as a psychological construct plays an important role in languagc acquisition processes,

Two

counterintuitive

facts

have emerged in this review.

First,

it

is

not necessary to

_postulate

a STS

inorder toexplain working memory span

perform-ance, which

intuitively

seems torequire STS. Sec-ond, itisnecessaizu to_postulatea limitedcapacity STS inexplaining the acquisition of the language structures, which

is

essentially a

long-term

phenome-non that one would not expect todemand a STS.

Therefore,itisimportant

to

note that

two

situations must be

distinguished,

one

in

which retention over theshort term

is

required and theother assuming the presence of a

STS,

a dedicated system forshort-term retention or forother cognitive functions

(see

Crow-der,1993}.

Although

cognitive psychologists

have

been

largelysuccessful inseparating the human cognitive

system into distinctcomponents to

better

under-stand

it,

one rnust

bear

in

mind thatthe psychologi-cal reality of a construct can only be confirmed

through empirical observations of

its

explanatory

value ina theoretical context.

Acknowledgement

Thi$ work was _partlysupported by a

Grant-in-Aid

for

Scientific

Research

from

the

Ministry

of

Educa-tion,

Culture,

Sports,

Science,

and Techno]ogy of

Ja-pan

(Project

Number 16530469).

References

Allport,D.A. 1984 Auditory verbal short-term

ory and conduction aphasia,

In

Bouma,

H. &

wh'uis,

D.G.

(Eds.),

Attention

and Pe7:formance X:

Control

of

ianguage

Processes

(pp.351-364).

don: Erlbaum.

Baddeley,

A,D.

1986

JVbrking

memory, New York]

Oxford

University Press.

Baddeley, A.D.

Gathcrco]c,

S. E.,

&

Papagno,

C.

1998

The

Phonological

loop

as a

language

learning

vice. Psychotogical

Review,

105,158-173, Baddeley A,D.& Hitch G.

J.

1974

Working

memory.

InBower,

G,

{Ed.),

Rsychotogy

of

learni7rg

and

vation

VZil

(pp,

47-90),

New

York:

Academic

Press.

Baddeley, A.D,

&

Wi]son,

B,

A. 1993

A

case of word

deafness

with preserved span:

Implications

for

thc

structure and

function

of working memory.

tex,

29,

741-748.

Brown,

G,

D,A,

&

Hulme,

C. 1996

Non-word

tion,

STM,

and word age-of-acquisition:

A

tationalmodel.

In

S.

E. Gathercole

(Ed,),

Models

of

short-term memotl,

(pp.

129-184}. Hove, England:

Psychology

Press.

Case,

R. Kurland,

D.M.,

&

Goldberg,

J,

1982

(7)

S,SAiTo:Memory function and short-term store as a psychologica] construct 59

tional efficiency and the _growth of short-term

memory span,

Jburnal

of

ExPen'mental Child Rsy-cholag),,

33,

386-404,

Chiappe,

P,,

Ha$her,

L,,

&

Siegel,

L.S.2000 Working memory, inhibitorycontroL and reading disability.

Mlemo7:y

&

Cognition,

28,

8-17,

Cochran, B.P.,McDonald,

J.

L. &

Parault,

S.

J. 1999

Too smart fortheirown _good:Tbc disadvantage of

a superior processing capacity foraclult language

]earners.

Ibumal

of

Mlemory

and Language, 41,

30-58,Conrad,

R. 1964 Acoustic confusion

in

immediate

memory, British

Jbumal

of

Psychology,

55,

75T84,

Cowan,

N. Tow'se,

J,

N,,

Hamilton,

Z.,

Saults,

J,

S. Elliott,E.M. Lacey,

J.

F. Moreno,

M.

V.

& Hitch, G.

J.

2003 Children'sworking-meniory _processes:A

response-timing analysis.

foumat

of

ExPen'mental

Psycholqg),:

General,

132, 113Ll32,

Crowder,

R.

G. 1993

Short-term

memory: Where do we stand? ILfemon,

&

Cognition,

21,

142-145,

Daneman,

M. &

Carpenter,P.A. 1980 Individual

dif-ferencesinworking memory and reading.

fournal

of

Vbrbal

Lea?"ning

and

Vbrbal

Behavior, 19,

450-466.Daneman,

M,

&

Merikle,

P.

M. 1996

Working

memory

and language comprehension: A meta-analysis,

Psychonomic Bultetin

&

Reviezu,

3,

422-433,

De

BenL

R. Palladino,

P. Pazzaglia,

F. &

CornoldL

C,

1998 Increases

in

intrusion

errors and working

memory deficitof poor comprehenders.

Quarterly

foumal

of

Empen'nzentalPsychotqg)J,

51A,

305-320.

Ellis,

A,W.

1980

Errors

in speech and short-term

mernory: The effects of _phonemic similarity and

syllable _position.

Iburnal

of

Verbal

Learning and

VkirbalBehavior,19,

624-634.

Elman,

J.

L 1993 Learning and develepment in

ral networks: The importance of starting smalL

Cognition,

48,

71-99.

Elman.

J.

L. Bates,

E. A.,

Johnson

M, H.,

Smith, A. Prisi,D.

&

Plunkett,

K

1996

Rethinking

innateness:A connecttonist PersPectiveon

menth

Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Engle,

R. W,,

Kane, M

_J.

& Tuholski,S.W. 1999

vidual

differences

in

working memory capacity

and what they tellus about controlled attention, general fluid

intelligence

and

functions

of the

frontal cortex, In Miyake, A. & Shah, R

(Eds.),

ILdodels

of

working memory: M2chanisms

of

active

maintenance and exeeutive control

(pp.102-134).

New

York:

Cambridge

University Press.

Ericsson,K.A.& Kintsch,

W,

1995

Long-term

ing memory. Psychologicat

Review,

102,

211-245.

Friedman, N.P,& Miyake, A.2004 The reading span

testand

its

_predictive _power forreading

hension

ability.

]burnag

of

Mbmof:y and Language,

51,

136-158.

Gathercole,S.E.1995 Isnonword repetition a testof

phonological memory or ]ong-term

knowledge?

It

all

depends

on thenonwords. Mbmor), & Cognition, 23,83-94.

Gathercole,

S.

E.

&

Bacldeley,

A.

D. 1990

The

rele of

phonological memory

in

vocabulary acquisition:

A

study of _young children

learning

new names.

Brit-ish

_fournat

_of

Rsychotqg:v,,81,439-454.

Gathercole,

S.E.

Frankish,

C.R.

Pickering,

S.J.

&

Peaker,

S. 1999

Phonotactic

influences

on

short-term memory.

fournal

ofExPerimental

Psychology:

Learning Mlemory, and Ccrgnition,25,84-95.

Gathercole,

S. E.,

Willis,

C. Emslie,

H.,

&

Baddeley

A.D.

1991

The

influences

of number of syllables and wordlikeness on children's repetition of non-words. APPIied Psycholinguistics,

12,

349-367.

Haarmann,

H,J.

Davelaar,

E,J.,

&

Usher,

M, 2003

Individual differences in semantic short-term

memory capacity and reading cornprehension.

10urnal

of

Mbmory

and

Language,

48,

320-345.

Hulme,

C. Maughan,

S. &

Brown, G.D,A.1991 Mem-ory

for

familiar

and unfamiliar words: Evidence for

a long-terrnmemory contribution to short-tcrm

memory span.

Jbumal

ofMemo73,

and

Langu(age,

30,

685-701.

Jarrold,

C,,

Baddeley, A.D. Hewes, A.K.,Leeke, T.C.

&

Phillips,

C.

E. 2004

What

links

verbal short-term

rnemory performance and vocabulary level?

Evi-dence of changing relationships among

individuals

with learning

disability.

]burnat

of

MbmoT),

and Langztage,50,134-148.

Just,

M.

A. &

Carpenter,

P,A,1992 A capacity _theory

of comprehension: Individual

differences

in

ing

memory.

RsycholQgical

Review,

99,

122-149,

Kareev, Y. 1995 Through a narrow window:

ing memory capacity and the detectionof

tion.

Cognition,56,263-269.

Kareev, Y.,Lieberman,

I,,

&

Lev,

M. 1997

Through

a narrow window: Sample size and the

_perception

of

correlation.

fournal

of

ExPerimental Rsychology:

GeneTul,

126,278-287,

Kintsch,

W.

1998

Comprehension:

Ptzradigm

_for

tion.

New

York:

Cambridge

University

Press,

MacDonald, MC. & Christiansen, M,H, 2002

assessing working rnemory] Comment on

Just

and

Carpenter

(1992)

and Waters and Caplan

(1996}.

Rsychologicat

Review,

109,

35-54,

MacKay,

D.

G. Burke,

D,

M. &

Stewart,

R,

1998

H.M:s

production deficits:Implications

for

relations

tween memory, semantic binding, and the

campal system.

fournat

of

Mbmo7)i and Language,

38,

28-69.

MaClelland,

J.

L. McNaughton,

B.

L. &

O'Reilly,

R,

C,

1995 Why thereare complementary

learning

tems

in

the

hippocampus

and neocortex:

Insights

(8)

60 The

_Japanese

_Journal

of Psychonomic Science Vol,25,No. 1

models of learning and memory, RsychotQgical Re-view, 102,419-457.

Maehara, Y. &

Saito,

S,

{2006).

The

relationship

be-tween _processing and storage inworking memory

span; Not _two sides of the same coin.

Iburnal

of

Memor:y

and

Langttage.

(in

press)

Miyake,

A,

&

Friedman,

N,

P,

2004

individuat

difilar-ences

in

worleing memor),: What doworhing memoT)J

span

test really measure? Paper _presented at The

2nd International

Conference

on

Working

Mem-ory. 17-20th August, Kyoto,

Japan.

Miyake, A.

&

Shah,

P,

1999

Toward

unified theories of working memoryi

Emerging

general consensus,

unresolved theoretical

issues,

and futureresearch directions.InMiyake, A. & Shah, P.

_(Eds.),

Mbdets

of

worlaing memorl,: Mbchanisms

of

active mainte-nance and executive control

(pp.442-481),

New

York: Cambridge

University

Press.

Nairne,

J. S,

2002

Remembering

over the short-term:

The

case against thestandard modeL Annual

Re-view

of

Rsychotogy,53,53-81,

Newport, E.L.1990 Manurational constrains on

lan-guage learning.

Cagnitive

Science,

14,

11-28.

Paulesu, E,,Frith,

C,

D,,

&

Frackowiak,

R. S,

J.

1993

The

neural correlates oi the verbal component of

working memory,

IVdtuTe,

362,

342-344,

Price,

C,,

Wjse, R. Watson,

J.

Petter$on,K. Howard, D,,& Franckowiak, R,1994 Brain activity during reading: The effects of exposure duration and task.

Brain,

117,

1255-1269.

Roodenrys, S.

&

Hinton,

M,

2002

Sublexical

or lexical effects on serial recall of nonwords?

lbu?veal

of

Esperimental

Plsychotog),:

Leaming; Memor)), and

Cognition,

28,29-33.

Saito,S,& Baddeley, A.D. 2004 Irrelevantsound disruptsspeech _production:

Exploring

the relation-ship

between

short-term memory and tallyinduced s]ipsof thetongue.

Quarterly

lburnal

of

lixPen'mental

Psychotogy,57A, 1309-1340.

Saito,

S. &

Ishii,

H.

2004

Cued

7ecaU

tests

can

behave

lileethe xgading

span

testin

_Predieting

individual's

language comprehension scores,

Paper

presented at

themeeting of the

Experimental

Psychology

Seci-ety, Lancaster,

UK,

Abstracts,

p.

31. Saito,

S. &

Miyake, A.2004 On the nature of tingand theprocessing-storage relationship in

rea-ding span _performance.

fournal

of

M2mo7v and

Langutrge,50,425-443.

Shah,P.& Miyake, A.1996 The separability of

work-ing

memory resources

for

spatial thinking and

language processing:An individual

differences

preach.

foun:al

of

ExPerimental

RsychogQg:y:

Gen-anl,

125,

4-27.

Shallice,

T.

1988 From neuroPsycholagy tomental structure. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,

Smith,

E.E.&

Jonides,

J,

1997

Working

memory:

A

view from neuroimaging.

Cognitive

RsychotQglyr,

33,

5-42.Stoltzfus,

E. R.,

Hasher, L,,& Zacks,R.T.1996

Work-ing

memory and aging:

Current

status of the

hibitoryview, InRichardson,

J

T,

E.,

Engle,

R.

W.

Hasher, L.,Logie, R,H. Stoltzfus,E,R.

&

Zacks,

R.T,

_(Eds,),

PVbnEiing

memor), and

horman

cQgnition

(pp.

66-88).

New

York:

Oxford

University

Press.

Thorn,

A.

S.

C. &

Gathercole,

S.

E, 1999

Language-specific knowledge and short-term memory in

bilingual

and non-bilingual children.

Ouarterly

JOurnat

of

ExPerimental PsycholQgy,

52A,

303-324.

Towse,

J,

N.& Hitch.G.

J.

1995 Istherearelationship

between task

demand

and $turage space

in

testsof

working memory capacity?

Quarterly

fourveat

of

ExPerimental

Rsychotogy,48A, 108-124.

Towse,

J.

N.Hitch,

G.

J.

& Hutton, U,1998 A

reevalu-ation of working rnemory capacity

in

c,hildren.

Iburnat

of

demoi:y,and Langucnge,

39,

195-217.

Towse,

J,

N. Hitch,

G.

J. &

Hutton,

U.

2000

On

the

interpretation

of working memory $pan

in,adults.

Memor))

&

Cog7tition,

28,

341-348.

Turner,

M.L & Engle,R.W, 1989 Isworking

mem-ory capacity task dependent?

foumal

of

rtfemory

and Language,

28,

127-154,

Vallar,G.2006 Memory systems:

The

case of phonol-ogical short-term memory, A festschriftfor

tive

Neuropsyehology.

Cognitive

Nbormpsychology,

23,

135-155,

Vallar,G. & Baddeley, A.D, 1984 Fractionation of

working memory:

Neuropsychologica]

ev,idence

fora short-term store,

JOurnal

of

Verbal

Learning

and Verbal

Behavior,

23,

_151-161,

Vallar,

G. &

Shallice,

T. 1990

NeurQPsychological

im-Pairments

of

short-term memor),. Cambridge:

Cam-bridge University Press,

Waters, G.S.& Caplan, D.1996 The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and