Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Icon

Try Thinking and Learning Without Working Memory

 

 

Imag­ine dial­ing a phone num­ber by hav­ing to look up each dig­it one at a time in the phone book. Nor­mal­ly, you look up the num­ber and remem­ber all sev­en dig­its long enough to get it dialed. Even with one dig­it at a time, you would have to remem­ber each dig­it long enough to get it dialed. What if your brain could not even do that! We call this kind of remem­ber­ing, “work­ing mem­o­ry,” because that is what the brain works with. Work­ing mem­o­ry is crit­i­cal to every­day liv­ing.

Con­scious thought involves mov­ing a suc­ces­sion of items through what seems like a vir­tu­al scratch-pad. Think of it like stream­ing audio/video, where “thought bites” move on to the scratch pad where they are fed into a thought process and then moved off the scratch pad to make room for the next thought bite.

We think with what is in work­ing or “scratch pad” mem­o­ry. What we know, stored in reg­u­lar mem­o­ry, is brought onto the scratch pad in suc­ces­sive stages, each involv­ing sub­ject­ing the knowl­edge to analy­sis, inte­gra­tion into the cur­rent con­text, and cre­ative re-orga­ni­za­tion via our think­ing process­es (“thought engine”). The ani­mat­ed ver­sion of this graph­ic shows item 1 mov­ing on to the scratch pad and then sent on to the “thought engine.” This is fol­lowed by item 2, then 3, etc.

Con­scious think­ing thus requires the abil­i­ty to hold infor­ma­tion “on line” long enough to use it in think­ing. Con­scious thought thus seems to be a seri­al­ly ordered process of mov­ing thought bites on to and off of the scratch pad.working memory thinking

Uncon­scious Think­ing

What about uncon­scious thought … the kind that occurs when you are not pay­ing atten­tion? We know that the sub­con­scious mind is pro­cess­ing infor­ma­tion (i.e. “think­ing”) all the time, even while we sleep. The evi­dence for this kind of “sleep learn­ing” is incon­tro­vert­ible and sum­ma­rized in my mem­o­ry improve­ment book (see http://thankyoubrain.com). Sub­con­scious think­ing and its relat­ed mem­o­ries may not involve a scratch pad of work­ing mem­o­ry. Sub­con­scious think­ing could occur as mul­ti­ple par­al­lel process­es and may be more non-lin­ear than con­scious thought. How­ev­er, in the case of dream sleep, which I regard as a form of con­scious­ness, those dreams that I hap­pen to remem­ber do seem to be based on seri­al­ly ordered “thought bites.”

A recent study, not explic­it­ly con­cern­ing mem­o­ry, sheds some impor­tant light both on how we think and on the role of work­ing mem­o­ry in thought. In this study, the researchers exam­ined how peo­ple make a cor­rect choice. Researchers com­pared the qual­i­ty of deci­sions formed from con­scious ver­sus uncon­scious think­ing with that result­ing from uncon­scious think­ing. Here is how they stud­ied this issue. In one study, sub­jects were giv­en infor­ma­tion about the attrib­ut­es of four hypo­thet­i­cal cars, and they were to decide which was the best car, based on the attrib­ut­es assigned to each car. Analy­sis con­di­tions were either sim­ple (based on only four attrib­ut­es) or com­plex (based on 12 attrib­ut­es). After read­ing about the attrib­ut­es, sub­jects were assigned to one of two groups: con­scious analy­sis or to an uncon­scious thought con­di­tion. In the con­scious con­di­tion, they thought about the attrib­ut­es for four min­utes before mak­ing a choice. In the uncon­scious con­di­tion, sub­jects were told they would have to make a choice in four min­utes, but they were dis­tract­ed dur­ing that time by being required to solve ana­grams.

Their “think­ing” about the prob­lem was thus not allowed to be con­scious.

Not sur­pris­ing­ly, when only four attrib­ut­es were involved, sub­jects in the con­scious-thought con­di­tion made the best choice of car. But when the com­plex con­di­tion of 12 attrib­ut­es, results reversed. The best car was cho­sen most reli­ably in the uncon­scious-thought con­di­tion.

In a sec­ond study, one change was made. Instead of choos­ing the best car, sub­jects were asked about their atti­tudes toward the four cars. Again, con­scious thinkers made the clear­est dis­tinc­tions among the cars when only four attrib­ut­es were con­sid­ered, but the oppo­site occurred when 12 attrib­ut­es had to be con­sid­ered.

In anoth­er exper­i­ment, two stores were select­ed, one that sold com­pli­cat­ed items like fur­ni­ture and the oth­er a depart­ment store that sold sim­ple prod­ucts. As peo­ple left the store, peo­ple were asked ques­tions about what they bought, why they bought it, how cost­ly was it, and how much they thought about mak­ing the choice. The buy­ers were cat­e­go­rized as either “thinkers” (those who spent a lot of time con­scious­ly mak­ing a deci­sion) and “impulse buy­ers” (who did not spend much time con­scious­ly think­ing about their choice). Sev­er­al weeks lat­er, these same peo­ple were called to check on how sat­is­fied they were with the pur­chase. As expect­ed, more post-choice sat­is­fac­tion was found in the con­scious thinker group, but only for the sim­ple items in the depart­ment store. For the com­plex choic­es in the fur­ni­ture store, the uncon­scious thinkers expressed the most sat­is­fac­tion with their pur­chas­es.

What all this says is that sim­ple deci­sions are best made by care­ful con­scious thought. But for com­pli­cat­ed deci­sions, the best choic­es may result from “delib­er­a­tion with­out pay­ing atten­tion,” that is let­ting the think­ing be done by the uncon­scious mind. I inter­pret these results to reflect the depen­dence of con­scious thought on scratch-pad mem­o­ry and the rel­a­tive inde­pen­dence of sub­con­scious thought on scratch-pad mem­o­ry. Con­scious thought is very effec­tive as long as it can work on infor­ma­tion that it can hold on-line in work­ing mem­o­ry. But work­ing mem­o­ry has lim­it­ed capac­i­ty. There­fore it can­not be very effec­tive when the amount of infor­ma­tion need­ed for high-qual­i­ty thought exceeds the car­ry­ing capac­i­ty of work­ing mem­o­ry.

The corol­lary of this new evi­dence about work­ing mem­o­ry and think­ing process­es is that if we had a big­ger work­ing mem­o­ry, we might think bet­ter.

Work­ing Mem­o­ry Load Affects Pay­ing Atten­tion

Pay­ing atten­tion is pre-req­ui­site to learn­ing. The abil­i­ty to pay atten­tion seems to be affect­ed by how much infor­ma­tion (load) is being car­ried in work­ing mem­o­ry. These prin­ci­ples have been elu­ci­dat­ed in human exper­i­ments that test­ed the assump­tion that attend­ing to rel­e­vant details in a learn­ing sit­u­a­tion requires that the details be held in work­ing mem­o­ry. Hav­ing oth­er, non-rel­e­vant, infor­ma­tion in work­ing mem­o­ry at the same time serves as a dis­trac­tion, low­er­ing atten­tion and inter­fer­ing with mem­o­ry for­ma­tion.

In this exper­i­ment, par­tic­i­pants per­formed an atten­tion task that required them to ignore pic­tures of dis­tracter faces while hold­ing in work­ing mem­o­ry a string of dig­its that were in the same order (low mem­o­ry load) or dif­fer­ent order (high mem­o­ry order) on every tri­al. The test thus was one of mul­ti-task­ing, one task being hold­ing the dig­its in work­ing mem­o­ry and the oth­er task being iden­ti­fy­ing whether a name flashed on the screen was that of a famous politi­cian or a pop star, while a con­tra­dic­to­ry face was pro­ject­ed. For exam­ple, the name Mick Jag­ger would have the face of Bill Clin­ton super­im­posed, and the task was to know that Mick Jag­ger is a pop star, not a politi­cian.

The atten­tion per­for­mance degrad­ed severe­ly with high work­ing-mem­o­ry load. That is, the dis­tract­ing faces cre­at­ed con­fu­sion when sub­jects were also required to hold mixed-order dig­its in work­ing mem­o­ry at the same time.

The point is sim­ple. It is hard to think about two com­pli­cat­ed things at once. The grow­ing trend, espe­cial­ly among young peo­ple, to mul­ti-task may seem won­der­ful. But actu­al­ly, mul­ti-task­ing is most like­ly to inter­fere with focused atten­tion and, in turn, degrade mem­o­ry for­ma­tion, recall, and think­ing qual­i­ty.

Train­ing Work­ing Mem­o­ry and IQ

Stud­ies have shown that it is pos­si­ble to train ADHD chil­dren to have bet­ter work­ing mem­o­ries. This led researchers in Japan to try to devel­op a sim­ple work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing method and to test whether this method can increase the work­ing mem­o­ry capac­i­ty and whether this has any effect on a child’s IQ. Chil­dren ages 6–8 were trained 10 min­utes a day each day for two months. The train­ing task to expand work­ing mem­o­ry capac­i­ty con­sist­ed of pre­sent­ing a dig­it or a word item for a sec­ond, with one-sec­ond inter­vals between items. For exam­ple, a sequence might be 5, 8, 4, 7, with one-sec­ond inter­vals between each dig­it. Test for recall could take the form of “Where in the sequence was the 4?” or “What was the third item?” Thus stu­dents had to prac­tice hold­ing the item sequence in work­ing mem­o­ry. With prac­tice, the train­ers increased the num­ber of items from 3 to 8.

After train­ing, researchers test­ed the chil­dren on anoth­er work­ing mem­o­ry task. Scores on this test indi­cat­ed that work­ing mem­o­ry cor­re­lat­ed with IQ test scores. That is, chil­dren with bet­ter work­ing mem­o­ry abil­i­ty also had high­er IQs. When first graders were test­ed for intel­li­gence, the data showed that intel­li­gence scores increased dur­ing the year by 6% in con­trols, but increased by 9% in the group that had been giv­en the mem­o­ry train­ing. The mem­o­ry train­ing effect was even more evi­dent in the sec­ond graders, with a 12% gain in intel­li­gence score in the mem­o­ry trained group, com­pared with a 6% gain in con­trols. As might be expect­ed, the low­er IQ chil­dren showed the great­est gain from mem­o­ry train­ing.

So in con­clu­sion, it seems that work­ing mem­o­ry capac­i­ty can be increased by train­ing and that such train­ing can even raise IQ, at least in young chil­dren.

Ben­e­fits of Increas­ing Work­ing Mem­o­ry

Accu­mu­lat­ing evi­dence seems to indi­cate that work­ing mem­o­ry, with prop­er train­ing, can be improved in any­one, even adults. I recent­ly found a research report in which last­ing improve­ments in brain func­tion were pro­duced in healthy adults by only five weeks of prac­tice on three work­ing-mem­o­ry tasks that involved the loca­tion of objects in space. Sub­jects per­formed 90 tri­als per day on a train­ing reg­i­men (CogMed). MRI scans showed increased activ­i­ty in the cor­ti­cal areas that were involved in pro­cess­ing the visu­al stim­uli. Brain activ­i­ty increas­es in these areas appeared with­in the first week and grew over time.

Sim­i­lar results have been report­ed by oth­er inves­ti­ga­tors. In a few cas­es, where dif­fer­ent kinds of stim­uli were used, mem­o­ry train­ing induced a decrease of brain activ­i­ty in cer­tain areas, which is inter­pret­ed to indi­cate that the trained brain did not have to work as hard. While we clear­ly don’t under­stand things very well, it seems clear that work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing not only improves mem­o­ry capa­bil­i­ty but also caus­es last­ing changes in the brain.

Help Your Work­ing-Mem­o­ry Capac­i­ty

I just read a fas­ci­nat­ing book on increas­ing teacher aware­ness of the impor­tance of work­ing-mem­o­ry capac­i­ty for teach­ing and learn­ing strate­gies. Many young­sters have work­ing mem­o­ry lim­i­ta­tions, and they usu­al­ly do not grow out of them. This is a major and seri­ous cause of low grades, poor learn­ing skills, poor con­fi­dence, and life-long dimin­ished moti­va­tion to learn.

Lim­it­ed work­ing-mem­o­ry capac­i­ty impairs the abil­i­ty to think and solve prob­lems. I was told once by a mid­dle-school teacher that her “spe­cial needs” stu­dents could do the same math as reg­u­lar stu­dents, but they just can’t remem­ber all the steps. This clear­ly reflects a lim­it­ed work­ing-mem­o­ry capac­i­ty. If the demands made on work­ing mem­o­ry could be less­ened, bet­ter think­ing could result.

Cer­tain strate­gies can help to reduce the load on work­ing mem­o­ry. Teach­ers should mod­el and stu­dents should employ the fol­low­ing devices:

  • Pro­vide help, cues, mnemon­ics, reminders.
  • KISS (Keep It Sim­ple, Stupid!)(example: use short, sim­ple sen­tences, present much of the instruc­tion as pictures/diagrams).
  • Don’t present so much infor­ma­tion. Less can be more.
  • Facil­i­tate rehearsal, using only rel­e­vant infor­ma­tion and no dis­trac­tors.
  • Get engaged, by tak­ing notes, and cre­at­ing dia­grams and con­cept maps.
  • Attach mean­ing from what is already known. (The more you know, the more you can know).
  • Orga­nize infor­ma­tion in small cat­e­gories.
  • Break down tasks into small chunks. Mas­ter each chunk sequen­tial­ly, one at a time.

Doing these things not only helps the think­ing process, but will also pro­mote the for­ma­tion of last­ing mem­o­ries. The process of con­vert­ing work­ing mem­o­ry into per­ma­nent form is called con­sol­i­da­tion, and I will explain that next time.

Bill Klemm— W. R. (Bill) Klemm, D.V.M., Ph.D. Sci­en­tist, pro­fes­sor, author, speak­er As a pro­fes­sor of Neu­ro­science at Texas A&M Uni­ver­si­ty, Bill has taught about the brain and behav­ior at all lev­els, from fresh­men, to seniors, to grad­u­ate stu­dents to post-docs. His recent books include Thank You Brain For All You Remem­ber and Core Ideas in Neu­ro­science.

Relat­ed arti­cles on Work­ing Mem­o­ry Train­ing

- Can Intel­li­gence Be Trained? Mar­tin Buschkuehl shows how

- Work­ing Mem­o­ry Train­ing: Inter­view with Dr. Torkel Kling­berg

- Work­ing Mem­o­ry Train­ing for Adults

Sources

1. Repovs, G and Bres­janac, M. 2006. Cog­ni­tive neu­ro­science of work­ing mem­o­ry: a pro­logue. Neu­ro­science. 139: 1–3.

2. Dijk­ster­huis, A. et al. 2006. On mak­ing the right choice: the delib­er­a­tion-with­out-atten­tion effect. Sci­ence. 311: 1005–1007.

3. Waji­ma, Kayo, and Sawaguchi, T. 2005. The effect of work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing on gen­er­al intel­li­gence in chil­dren. Soci­ety for Neu­ro­science Abstracts. Abstract 772.11.

4. de Fock­ert, J. W. et al. 2001. The role of work­ing mem­o­ry in visu­al selec­tive atten­tion. Sci­ence. 291: 1803–1806.

5. Ole­sen, P. J., West­er­berg, H., and King­berg, T. 2004. Increased pre­frontal and pari­etal activ­i­ty after train­ing of work­ing mem­o­ry. Nature Neu­ro­science. 7: 75–79.

6. Gath­er­cole, Susan E., and Alloway, Tra­cy P. 2008. Work­ing Mem­o­ry and Learn­ing. Sage Pub­li­ca­tions, 124 pages.

7. Gath­er­cole, Susan E., and Alloway, Tra­cy P. 2008. Work­ing mem­o­ry and learn­ing. Sage Pub­li­ca­tions, . 124 pages.

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

6 Responses

  1. Charles says:

    Here is an inter­est­ing inter­view with a woman who claims that she can not for­get:

    http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2008/05/an_interview_with_the_woman_wh.php

    Charles

  2. Mary says:

    After read­ing this arti­cle and a few oth­ers, I looked at the Cogmed web­site. Cogmed pur­ports to help peo­ple improve work­ing mem­o­ry and atten­tion and reduce impul­sive behav­ior.
    Iron­i­cal­ly, the first page I clicked on had a care­less gram­mat­i­cal error or typo that made the page dif­fi­cult to read — “Cogmed Work­ing Mem­o­ry Train­ing is devel­oped help peo­ple with sus­tain­ably improve work­ing mem­o­ry and atten­tion.”
    It must have passed through the hands of many inat­ten­tive staff mem­bers before appear­ing online. Per­haps they could ben­e­fit from using their own prod­uct!

    http://www.cogmed.com/cogmed/sections/en/9.aspx

    I’m very inter­est­ed in soft­ware for improv­ing my mem­o­ry, but I won’t patron­ize a busi­ness that does such slop­py work, because I fear it car­ries over into all aspects of the prod­uct.

  3. Alvaro says:

    Thank you Mary…I am sure the Cogmed folks would appre­ci­ate if you let them know about that, so they can fix it.

    And I encour­age you to take a more sub­stan­tial look at pro­grams that may help, using for exam­ple our 10-ques­tion check­list
    http://www.sharpbrains.com/resources/10-question-evaluation-checklist/

    This list of pub­lished sci­en­tif­ic stud­ies may well be more mean­ing­ful than one typo
    http://www.cogmed.com/cogmed/articles/46.aspx

    Please remem­ber no inter­ven­tion is best for every­one, so you do well in con­tin­u­ing your research.

  4. An inter­est­ing study with the promise of con­sid­er­able and excit­ing work for the future.
    I found myself spec­u­lat­ing as I read through the argu­ments as to whether there’s a defin­able gen­der-based dif­fer­ence in work­ing mem­o­ry capac­i­ty and per­for­mance capa­bil­i­ties.
    Is there any research in this area?

  5. Alvaro says:

    Hel­lo David,

    There is sig­nif­i­cant vari­abil­i­ty among indi­vid­u­als, regard­less of gen­der, which does impact per­for­mance.

    I haven’t come across mean­ing­ful data defin­ing gen­der-based WM dif­fer­ences. Pls let us know if you find any.

  6. angelina says:

    If you have enough work­ing mem­o­ry to both be pro­cess­ing this infor­ma­tion and devel­op­ing your own thoughts, you may be think­ing now, a) what exact­ly is Work­ing Mem­o­ry?, and b) why do we even care?.”

    nice to know that :). thnx

Leave a Reply

Categories: Attention and ADD/ADHD, Cognitive Neuroscience, Health & Wellness, Peak Performance, Professional Development

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters,  SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking how brain science can improve our health and our lives.

Search in our archives

Follow us and Engage via…

twitter_logo_header
RSS Feed

Watch All Recordings Now (40+ Speakers, 12+ Hours)