Department of Psychology-Cognitive Psychology, University of Zurich`
School of Psychology, University of Western Australia.
Psychol Bull. 2016 Jul;142(7):758-99. doi: 10.1037/bul0000046. Epub 2016 Mar 7.
We review the evidence for the 3 principal theoretical contenders that vie to explain why and how working memory (WM) capacity is limited. We examine the possibility that capacity limitations arise from temporal decay; we examine whether they might reflect a limitation in cognitive resources; and we ask whether capacity might be limited because of mutual interference of representations in WM. We evaluate each hypothesis against a common set of findings reflecting the capacity limit: The set-size effect and its modulation by domain-specificity and heterogeneity of the memory set; the effects of unfilled retention intervals and of distractor processing in the retention interval; and the pattern of correlates of WM tests. We conclude that-at least for verbal memoranda-a decay explanation is untenable. A resource-based view remains tenable but has difficulty accommodating several findings. The interference approach has its own set of difficulties but accounts best for the set of findings, and therefore, appears to present the most promising approach for future development. (PsycINFO Database Record
我们回顾了 3 种主要理论竞争者的证据,这些理论竞争解释了为什么以及如何工作记忆(WM)容量是有限的。我们考察了容量限制是否源于时间衰减;我们考察了它们是否可能反映认知资源的限制;我们还询问了容量是否可能受到 WM 中表示的相互干扰的限制。我们根据反映容量限制的一组常见发现来评估每种假设:集大小效应及其受记忆集的特定领域和异质性的调制;未填充保留间隔和保留间隔中分心处理的影响;以及 WM 测试的相关模式。我们的结论是-至少对于口头记忆-衰减解释是站不住脚的。基于资源的观点仍然可行,但难以容纳几种发现。干扰方法有其自身的一系列困难,但最能解释这组发现,因此,它似乎为未来的发展提供了最有前途的方法。(心理学信息数据库记录