Some shortcomings of long-term working memory (original) (raw)
Related papers
Long-term working memory: A computational implementation for chess expertise
2000
Long-term working memory (Ericsson and Kintsch, 1995) is a theory covering empirical data from several domains, including expert behaviour. One difficulty in applying and evaluating this theory, however, is that it is framed in rather general terms, and that several mechanisms and parameters are left unspecified. This paper proposes a computer implementation of the theory for a domain that Ericsson and Kintsch cover in depth, namely chess memory. Simulations of Saariluoma's (1989) experiment where both game and random chess positions are presented auditorily make it possible to analyse two key ingredients of the theory: encoding through elaboration of LTM schemas and patterns, and encoding through retrieval structures. In the simulations, these mechanisms were modulated by two parameters. The results show that random positions, but not game positions, are sensitive to these parameters' values. The study of expert behaviour is currently an important area of research in cognitive science. Several theories, including the chunking theory (Chase & Simon, 1973), the skilled memory theory (Chase & Ericsson, 1982), Soar (Newell, 1990), ACT (Anderson, 1983), and the template theory (Gobet & Simon, in press) have been advanced to explain how certain individuals excel in their domain of expertise. Recently, an important attempt to offer an integrative theory of cognition and expertise has been proposed by Ericsson and Kintsch (1995) with their long-term working memory (LT-WM) theory. Long-Term Working Memory: Overview After a detailed review of research on expertise and on text comprehension, Ericsson and Kintsch (1995) conclude that experts in various fields can encode information into long-term memory (LTM) more rapidly than had been postulated by traditional models of human memory, such as those of Anderson (1983) or Chase and Simon (1973). Based upon this analysis, Ericsson and Kintsch (1995) extend Chase and Ericsson's (1982) skilled memory theory into the LT-WM theory. The tenets of LT-WM are that "cognitive processes are viewed as a sequence of stable states representing end products of processing" and that "acquired memory skills allow these end products to be stored in long-term memory and kept directly accessible by means of retrieval cues in short-term memory [...]" (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995, p. 211). Two intertwined mechanisms allow rapid storage into LTM : (a) encoding through a retrieval structure, and (b) encoding through knowledge-based associations connecting items either to other items or to LTM patterns and schemas, which allows for an integrated representation of the information in LTM. Ericsson and Kintsch also note that the demands that the task makes on memory will constrain which encoding mechanism will be employed, and that the relative roles played by encoding through retrieval structures or through LTM elaborations vary from task to task. An important component of LT-WM is the concept of retrieval structure. Retrieval structures are "a set of retrieval cues [that] are organised in a stable structure" (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995, p. 216). It is assumed that, through practice and study, experts develop such structures for their domain of expertise. Perhaps the strongest empirical support for retrieval structures comes from the extremely detailed analysis of how SF and DD, otherwise unremarkable college students, became world-class experts in the digit-span task (Chase & Ericsson, 1982; Richman et al., 1995). The LT-WM proposal that SF and DD store groups of digits and additional semantic information in a hierarchical retrieval structure is well supported by a large set of data including reaction times, verbal protocols, and direct experimental manipulations. However, Ericsson and Kintsch also argue that retrieval structures alone are not sufficient, and that they need to be supplemented by
Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis
Memory, 1998
After reviewing the relevant theory on chess expertise, this paper reexamines experimentally the finding of Chase and Simon (1973a) that the differences in ability of chess players at different skill levels to copy and to recall positions are attributable to the experts' storage of thousands of chunks (patterned clusters of pieces) in long-term memory. Despite important differences in the experimental apparatus, the data of the present experiments regarding latencies and chess relations between successively placed pieces are highly correlated with those of Chase and Simon. We conclude that the 2second inter-chunk interval used to define chunk boundaries is robust, and that chunks have psychological reality. We discuss the possible reasons why Masters in our new study used substantially larger chunks than the Master of the 1973 study, and extend the chunking theory to take account of the evidence for large retrieval structures (templates) in long-term memory.
Memory & cognition, 2017
The expertise effect in memory for chess positions is one of the most robust effects in cognitive psychology. One explanation of this effect is that chess recall is based on the recognition of familiar patterns and that experts have learned more and larger patterns. Template theory and its instantiation as a computational model are based on this explanation. An alternative explanation is that the expertise effect is due, in part, to stronger players having better and more conceptual knowledge, with this knowledge facilitating memory performance. Our literature review supports the latter view. In our experiment, a sample of 79 chess players were given a test of memory for chess positions, a test of declarative chess knowledge, a test of fluid intelligence, and a questionnaire concerning the amount of time they had played nontournament chess and the amount of time they had studied chess. We determined the numbers of tournament games the players had played from chess databases. Chess k...
Brain Localisation of Memory Chunks in Chessplayers
2007
Chess experts store domain-specific representations in their long-term memory; due to the activation of such representations, they perform with high accuracy in tasks that require the maintenance of previously seen information. Chunkbased theories of expertise (chunking theory: Chase & Simon, 1973; template theory: Gobet & Simon, 1996) state that expertise is acquired mainly by the acquisition and storage in long-term memory of familiar chunks that allow quick recognition. We tested some predictions of these theories by using fMRI while chessplayers performed a recognition memory task. These theories predict that chessplayers access long-term memory chunks of domain-specific information, which are presumably stored in the temporal lobes. We also predicted that the recognition memory tasks would activate working memory areas in the frontal and parietal lobes. These predictions were supported by the data. Brain Localisation of Memory Chunks in Chessplayers Chase and Simon's (1973) seminal study of cognitive processes in chessplayers has had a strong impact in cognitive psychology. Their research spawned several studies in which chess was used successfully as a research tool for studying cognitive processes such as perception, memory and decision making (see Charness, 1992; Gobet, De Voogt, & Retschitzki, 2004, and Saariluoma, 1995 for reviews). One of the paradigmatic results obtained in this line of research is that chess experts are able to reconstruct with high accuracy a game position that had been shown for only a few seconds (Chase & Simon, 1973; Gobet & Simon, 2000). However, when the pieces are randomly placed throughout the board, experts perform only slightly better than novices (Gobet & Simon, 2000). Chunk-based theories of expertise (chunking theory: Chase & Simon, 1973; template theory: Gobet & Simon, 1996) account for these results by proposing that, during study and practice, experts store domain-specific "chunks" (perceptual patterns that can be used as units of meaning) in their long-term memory. When this practice becomes serious and continuous, some of the chunks evolve into more complex structures called "templates," consisting of core information supplemented with slots in which more information (perceptual or abstract) can be added (Gobet & Simon, 1996). Evidence for chunks and templates stored in long-term memory as the building blocks of chess expertise originates from behavioural studies (Chase & Simon, 1973; Gobet & Simon, 1996) and computational simulations (Gobet & Simon, 2000). Chunk-based theories of expertise are generalizable to other domains of expertise such as computer programming, medical diagnosis and engineering (Gobet et al., 20001; Simon & Gobet, 2000).
Recall of random and distorted chess positions: Implications for the theory of expertise
Memory & Cognition, 1996
This paper explores the question, important to the theory of expert performance, of the nature and number of chunks that chess experts hold in memory. It examines how memory contents determine players' abilities to reconstruct (1) positions from games, (2) positions distorted in various ways, and (3) random positions, Comparison of a computer simulation with a human experiment supports the usual estimate that chess Masters store some 50,000 chunks in memory. The observed impairment of recall when positions are modified by mirror image reflection implies that each chunk represents a specific pattern of pieces in a specific location. A good account of the results of the experiments is given by the template theory proposed by Gobet and Simon (in press) as an extension of Chase and Simon's (1973b)initial chunking proposal, and in agreement with other recent proposals for modification of the chunking theory (Richman, Staszewski, & Simon, 1995)as applied to various recall tasks.
Memory & Cognition, 2013
In this study, a personalization method (Guida, Tardieu, & Nicolas, European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21: 862-896 2009) was applied to a freerecall task. Fifteen pairs of words, composed of an object and a location, were presented to 93 participants, who had to mentally associate each pair and subsequently recall the objects. A 30-s delay was introduced on half of the trials, the presentation rate was manipulated (5 or 10 s per item), and verbal and visuospatial working memory tests were administered to test for their effects on the serial curve. Two groups were constituted: a personalized group, for whom the locations were well-known places on their university campus, and a nonpersonalized group, for whom the locations did not refer to known places. Since personalization putatively operationalizes long-term working memory (Ericsson & Kintsch, Psychological Review, 102: 211-245 1995)-namely, the capacity to store information reliably and rapidly in long-term memory-and if we take a dualstore approach to memory, the personalization advantage would be expected to be greater for pre-recency than for recency items. Overall, the results were compatible with long-term working memory theory. They contribute to validating the personalization method as a methodology to characterize the contribution of long-term memory storage to performance in working memory tasks.
Brain Localization of Memory Chunks in Chessplayers
International Journal of Neuroscience, 2007
Chess experts store domain-specific representations in their long-term memory; due to the activation of such representations, they perform with high accuracy in tasks that require the maintenance of previously seen information. Chunkbased theories of expertise (chunking theory: Chase & Simon, 1973; template theory: Gobet & Simon, 1996) state that expertise is acquired mainly by the acquisition and storage in long-term memory of familiar chunks that allow quick recognition. We tested some predictions of these theories by using fMRI while chessplayers performed a recognition memory task. These theories predict that chessplayers access long-term memory chunks of domain-specific information, which are presumably stored in the temporal lobes. We also predicted that the recognition memory tasks would activate working memory areas in the frontal and parietal lobes. These predictions were supported by the data. Brain Localisation of Memory Chunks in Chessplayers Chase and Simon's (1973) seminal study of cognitive processes in chessplayers has had a strong impact in cognitive psychology. Their research spawned several studies in which chess was used successfully as a research tool for studying cognitive processes such as perception, memory and decision making (see Charness, 1992; Gobet, De Voogt, & Retschitzki, 2004, and Saariluoma, 1995 for reviews). One of the paradigmatic results obtained in this line of research is that chess experts are able to reconstruct with high accuracy a game position that had been shown for only a few seconds (Chase & Simon, 1973; Gobet & Simon, 2000). However, when the pieces are randomly placed throughout the board, experts perform only slightly better than novices (Gobet & Simon, 2000). Chunk-based theories of expertise (chunking theory: Chase & Simon, 1973; template theory: Gobet & Simon, 1996) account for these results by proposing that, during study and practice, experts store domain-specific "chunks" (perceptual patterns that can be used as units of meaning) in their long-term memory. When this practice becomes serious and continuous, some of the chunks evolve into more complex structures called "templates," consisting of core information supplemented with slots in which more information (perceptual or abstract) can be added (Gobet & Simon, 1996). Evidence for chunks and templates stored in long-term memory as the building blocks of chess expertise originates from behavioural studies (Chase & Simon, 1973; Gobet & Simon, 1996) and computational simulations (Gobet & Simon, 2000). Chunk-based theories of expertise are generalizable to other domains of expertise such as computer programming, medical diagnosis and engineering (Gobet et al., 20001; Simon & Gobet, 2000).
How does knowledge promote memory? The distinctiveness theory of skilled memory☆
Journal of Memory and Language, 2008
The robust effects of knowledge on memory for domain-relevant information reported in previous research have largely been attributed to improved organizational processing. The present research proposes the distinctiveness theory of skilled memory, which states that knowledge improves memory not only through improved organizational processing but also through more effective processing of differences between items in the context of the similarity defined by organization. Individuals with either high or low knowledge about NFL football were presented with lists containing items from the target domain (NFL football) or a control domain (cooking). Individuals either performed a category sorting task, a pleasantness rating task, or both. Results on a surprise free recall test later showed knowledge effects on memory (high knowledge individuals had greater recall than low knowledge individuals for football items but not for cooking items). Secondary measures established that the knowledge effect on memory was due not only to better organizational processing but also to more effective item-specific processing.
Five seconds or sixty? Presentation time in expert memory
2000
The template theory presented in Gobet and Simon (1996a, 1998) is based on the EPAM theory (Feigenbaum & Simon, 1984; Richman et al., 1995), including the numerical parameters that have been estimated in tests of the latter; and it therefore offers precise predictions for the timing of cognitive processes during the presentation and recall of chess positions. This paper describes the behavior of CHREST, a computer implementation of the template theory, in a task when the presentation time is systematically varied from one second to sixty seconds, on the recall of both game and random positions, Five Seconds or Sixty? http://people.brunel.ac.uk/\~hsstffg/papers/Role%20of%20Presntn%2... 2 of 28 19/05/2007 14:54 and compares the model to human data. As predicted by the model, strong players are better than weak players with both types of positions. Their superiority with random positions is especially clear with long presentation times, but is also present after brief presentation times, although smaller in absolute value. CHREST accounts for the data, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Strong players' superiority with random positions is explained by the large number of chunks they hold in LTM. Strong players' high recall percentage with short presentation times is explained by the presence of templates, a special class of chunks. The model is compared to other theories of chess skill, which either cannot account for the superiority of Masters with random positions (models based on high-level descriptions and on levels of processing) or predict too strong a performance of Masters with random positions (long-term working memory).