Memory Span Experiment

Memory Span Experiment

Baddeley (2021) reports that working memory enables individuals to process and apply information they can recall. Information stored in the working memory should be rehearsed to transfer it to long-term memory. Various components form the working memory; The phonological loop stores written and verbal information (Baddeley et al., 2019), while the visuospatial component stores images and their orientation (Baddeley et al., 2019). On the other hand, the episodic buffer links short-term and long-term memory (Baddeley et al., 2019). This experiment aims to measure the capacity of the working memory. The experiment will use a list of items and will vary the length of these items.

Method

The experiment was conducted online. I began the experiment by selecting the “next trial” button. This presented a series of items on the left side of the window. Each item was displayed for one second. Examples of items displayed included numbers, short words, letters that sound similar, long words, and letters that sound different. After the presentation of each set of items, the items were presented on the right side of the screen. After that, I picked the buttons based on the order in which the items were presented. I clicked the “next trial” button to submit my feedback and generate a new item sequence. After each submission, the window displayed “correct” or “incorrect” based on the feedback provided. In this scenario, “correct” indicates that I could recall the sequence of the items. On the other hand, “incorrect” indicates that I could not recall the sequence of items. A “correct” response resulted in the addition of an extra item in the next display. An “incorrect” response resulted in a reduction of one item from the next display. I repeated this procedure five times for each set of items.

Results

I recorded the highest memory span for numbers, short words, and letters that sounded different. My memory span for numbers and short words was nine. On the other hand, my memory span for letters that sounded different was seven. I recorded the lowest memory span for long words and letters that sounded similar. My memory span for long words was six, whereas my memory span for letters that sounded different was five. Furthermore, I demonstrated a higher memory for a short list of items than for a long list. In this experiment, the dependent variable was the length of the last items that were recalled correctly. The independent variables were the items: numbers, short words, letters that sound similar, long words, and letters that sound different.

The results are harmonious with my expectations. I expected to display a higher memory span for numbers and short words. Short words are recalled easily because they are easy to recite (Maehler et al., 2019). On the other hand, people are likely to experience difficulty in reciting and memorizing long words and letters that sound the same (Maehler et al., 2019). Consistently, nothing about the experiment came to me as a surprise. Notably, various factors would impact the outcomes of the memory span experiment. To begin with, familiarity with the words included in the experiment would impact the outcomes regardless of the length of the words. In this context, familiarity will likely increase the participant’s memory span. Also, mental health conditions are likely to influence the outcomes of this experiment. Patients with conditions such as schizophrenia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are likely to have a shorter memory span (Wachemo-elearning.net, n.d.). Furthermore, age and intelligence impact memory span. Lastly, young children are unlikely to recall complex words compared to adults (Wachemo-elearning.net, n.d.).

References

Baddeley, A. D. (2021). Developing the concept of working memory: The role of neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 36(6), 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acab060

Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J., & Allen, R. J. (2019). From short-term store to multicomponent working memory: The role of the modal model. Memory and Cognition, 47(4), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0878-5

Maehler, C., Joerns, C., & Schuchardt, K. (2019). Training working memory of children with and without dyslexia. Children, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/children6030047

Wachemo-elearning.net. (n.d.). 4.1.3.Factors Affecting Memory. https://wachemo-elearning.net/courses/essence-of-psychology/lessons/chapter-four-10/topic/4-1-3-factors-affecting-memory/

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Instructions
Memory Span Experiment
Using CogLab, complete the memory span experiment and create a report on the experiment.

In your report, write a brief introduction explaining the theory involved in the experiment. Next, in the Methods section, describe the process that you followed to complete the experiment. Make sure to include enough information so that others can also perform the same experiment successfully.

Finally, describe the experimental results, including conditions where you performed the best and the worst. Provide a rationale explaining why the results differed in both conditions. Summarize your report, including answers to the following questions:

Were the results in accordance with your expectations? Provide a rationale to support your answer.
Did anything about the experiment surprise you? If yes, what?
What extraneous factors would influence the results of the memory span experiment?