CHAPTER 1The Psychology of MemoryAl

CHAPTER 1
The Psychology of Memory
Alan D. Baddeley
Department of Psychology, University of York, UK
In this chapter I will try to provide a brief overview of the concepts and techniques that
are most widely used in the psychology of memory. Although it may not appear to be
the case from sampling the literature, there is in fact a great deal of agreement as to what
constitutes the psychology of memory, much of it developed through the interaction of the
study of normal memory in the laboratory and of its breakdown in brain-damaged patients.
A somewhat more detailed account can be found in Parkin & Leng (1993) and Baddeley
(1999), while a more extensive overviewis given by Baddeley (1997), and within the various
chapters comprising the Handbook of Memory (Tulving & Craik, 2000).
THE FRACTIONATION OF MEMORY
The concept of human memory as a unitary faculty began to be seriously eroded in the
1960s with the proposal that long-term memory (LTM) and short-term memory (STM)
represent separate systems. Among the strongest evidence for this dissociation was the
contrast between two types of neuropsychological patient. Patients with the classic amnesic
syndrome, typically associated with damage to the temporal lobes and hippocampi, appeared
to have a quite general problem in learning and remembering new material, whether verbal
or visual (Milner, 1966). They did, however, appear to have normal short-term memory
(STM), as measured for example by digit span, the capacity to hear and immediately repeat
back a unfamiliar sequence of numbers. Shallice &Warrington (1970) identified an exactly
opposite pattern of deficit in patients with damage to the perisylvian region of the left
hemisphere. Such patients had a digit span limited to one or two, but apparently normal
LTM. By the late 1960s, the evidence seemed to be pointing clearly to a two-component
memory system. Figure 1.1 shows the representation of such a system from an influential
model of the time, that of Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968). Information is assumed to flow from
the environment through a series of very brief sensory memories, that are perhaps best
regarded as part of the perceptual system, into a limited capacity short-term store. They
proposed that the longer an item resides in this store, the greater the probability of its transfer
to LTM. Amnesic patients were assumed to have a deficit in the LTM system, and STM
patients in the short-term store.
The Essential Handbook of Memory Disorders for Clinicians. Edited by A.D. Baddeley, M.D. Kopelman and B.A. Wilson.
C 
2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN 0-470-09141-X.
2 A.D. BADDELEY
Environmental
input
Sensory registers
Visual
Auditory
Short-term store
(STS)
Temporary
working memory
Long-term store
(LTS)
Permanent
memory store
Control processes:
Rehearsal
Coding
Decision
Retrieval strategies
Response output
Haptic
Figure 1.1 The model of human memory proposed by Atkinson & Shiffrin. Reproduced from
Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968)
By the early 1970s, itwas clear that the model had encountered at least two problems. The
first of these concerned the learning assumption. Evidence suggested that merely holding
an item in STM did not guarantee learning. Much more important was the processing that
the item underwent. This is emphasized in the levels-of-processing framework proposed by
Craik&Lockhart (1972). They suggested that probability of subsequent recall or recognition
was a direct function of the depth to which an item was processed. Hence, if the subject
merely noted the visual characteristics of a word, for example whether it was in upper
or lower case, little learning would follow. Slightly more would be remembered if the
word were also processed acoustically by deciding, for example, whether it rhymed with
a specified target word. By far the best recall, however, followed semantic processing, in
which the subject made a judgement about the meaning of the word, or perhaps related it
to a specified sentence, or to his/her own experience.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MEMORY 3
This levels of processing effect has been replicated many times, and although the specific
interpretation proposed is not universally accepted, there is no doubt that a word or experience
that is processed in a deep way that elaborates the experience and links it with prior
knowledge, is likely to be far better retained than one that receives only cursory analysis.
The effect also occurs in the case of patients with memory deficits, making it a potentially
useful discovery for those interested in memory rehabilitation, although it is important to
remember that cognitive impairment may hinder the processes necessary for such elaboration.
Indeed, it was at one point suggested that failure to elaborate might be at the root of
the classic amnesic syndrome, although further investigation showed this was not the case
(see Baddeley, 1997, for further discussion).
A second problem for the Atkinson & Shiffrin model was presented by the data on STM
patients that had initially appeared to support it. Although such patients argued strongly for
a dissociation between LTM and STM, the Atkinson & Shiffrin model assumed that STM
was necessary, indeed crucial, for long-term learning, and indeed for many other cognitive
activities. In fact, STM patients appeared to have normal LTM, and with one or two minor
exceptions, such as working out change while shopping, had very few everday cognitive
problems.
This issue was tackled by Baddeley & Hitch (1974), who were explicitly concerned with
the relationship between STM and LTM. A series of experiments attempted to block STM
in normal subjects by requiring them to recite digit sequences while performing other tasks,
such as learning, reasoning or comprehending, that were assumed to depend crucially upon
STM. Decrement occurred, with the impairment increasing with the length of the digit
sequence that was being retained, suggesting that STM and LTMdid interact. However, the
effect was far from dramatic, again calling into question the standard model. Baddeley &
Hitch proposed that the concept of a simple unitary STM be replaced by a more complex
system which they termed “working memory”, so as to emphasize its functional importance
in cognitive processing. The model they proposed is shown in Figure 1.2.
Working memory is assumed to comprise an attentional controller, the central executive,
assisted by two subsidiary systems, the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad.
The phonological (or articulatory) loop is assumed to comprise a store that holds memory
traces for a couple of seconds, combined with a subvocal rehearsal process. This is capable
of maintaining the items in memory using subvocal speech, which can also be used to
convert nameable but visually presented stimuli, such as letters orwords, into a phonological
code. STM patients were assumed to have a deficit in this system, whereas the remainder
of working memory was assumed to be spared (Vallar & Baddeley, 1984). Subsequent
research, based on STM patients, normal children and adults, and children with specific
language impairment, suggest that the phonological loop system may have evolved for the
purpose of language acquisition (Baddeley et al., 1998). A more detailed account of this
system and its breakdown is given by Vallar & Papagno (2002).
Central
executive
Phonological
loop
Visuospatial
sketch-pad
Figure 1.2 The Baddeley & Hitch model of working memory. Reproduced from Baddeley &
Hitch (1974)
4 A.D. BADDELEY
The visuospatial sketchpad (or scratchpad) is assumed to allowthe temporary storage and
manipulation of visual and spatial information. Its function can be disrupted by concurrent
visuospatial activity and, as in the case of the phonological loop, our understanding has
been advanced by the study of neuropsychological patients. More specifically, there appear
to be separate visual and spatial components, which may be differentially disrupted. A more
detailed account of this system and the relevant neuropsychological evidence is given by
Della Sala & Logie (2002).
The third component of the model, the central executive,was assumed to provide an attentional
control system, both for the subsystems of working memory and for other activities.
Baddeley (1986) suggested that a good account of it might be provided by the supervisory
attentional system (SAS) proposed by Norman & Shallice (1986) to account for the attentional
control of action. They assume that much activity is controlled by well-learned habits
and schemata, guided by environmental cues. Novel actions that were needed to respond
to unexpected situations, however, depended upon the intervention of the limited-capacity
SAS. This was assumed to be capable of overriding habits so as to allow novel actions in
response to new challenges. Slips of action, such as driving to the office rather than the supermarket
on a Saturday morning, were attributed to the failure of the SAS to override such
habits. The problems in action control shown by patients with frontal lobe damage were
also attributed to failure of the SAS; hence, perseverative activity might reflect the failure
of the SAS to break away from the domination of action by environmental cues (Shallice,
1988).
Both Shallice himself and others have extended their account to include a range of potentially
separable executive processes, hence providing an account of the range of differing
deficits that may occur in patients with frontal lobe damage (Baddeley, 1996; Duncan, 1996;
Shallice & Burgess, 1996). Given the far from straightforward mapping of anatomical location
onto cognitive function, Baddeley & Wilson (1988) suggested that the term “frontal
lobe syndrome” be replaced by the more functional term, “dysexecutive syndrome”. For a
recent review of this area, see Roberts et al. (1998) and Stuss & Knight (2002).
The implications of frontal lobe function and executive deficit for the functioning of
memory are substantial, since the executive

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

BAB 1Psikologi memoriAlan D. BaddeleyJurusan psikologi, University of York, UKDalam bab ini saya akan mencoba untuk memberikan gambaran singkat mengenai konsep-konsep dan teknik yangyang paling banyak digunakan dalam psikologi memori. Meskipun mungkin tidak muncul untuk menjadikasus dari sampling literatur, sebenarnya ada banyak perjanjian mengenai apaPsikologi memori, banyak dikembangkan melalui interaksi yang merupakanStudi normal memori di laboratorium dan yang kerusakan otak yang rusak pasien.Account yang agak lebih rinci dapat ditemukan di Parkin & Leng (1993) dan Baddeley(1999), sementara overviewis lebih luas yang diberikan oleh Baddeley (1997), dan dalam berbagaiBab-bab yang terdiri dari buku pegangan memori (Tulving & Craik, 2000).FRAKSINASI MEMORIKonsep manusia memori sebagai Fakultas kesatuan yang mulai serius terkikis ditahun 1960-an dengan proposal tersebut bahwa jangka panjang memori (LTM) dan memori jangka pendek (STM)mewakili sistem terpisah. Di antara bukti terkuat bagi pemisahan ini adalahkontras antara dua jenis pasien neuropsychological. Pasien dengan klasik amnesicSindrom, biasanya terkait dengan kerusakan lobus temporal dan hippocampi, munculmemiliki masalah yang cukup umum dalam belajar dan mengingat materi baru, Apakah verbalatau visual (Milner, 1966). Mereka melakukannya, namun, tampaknya memiliki memori jangka pendek yang normal(STM), as measured for example by digit span, the capacity to hear and immediately repeatback a unfamiliar sequence of numbers. Shallice &Warrington (1970) identified an exactlyopposite pattern of deficit in patients with damage to the perisylvian region of the lefthemisphere. Such patients had a digit span limited to one or two, but apparently normalLTM. By the late 1960s, the evidence seemed to be pointing clearly to a two-componentmemory system. Figure 1.1 shows the representation of such a system from an influentialmodel of the time, that of Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968). Information is assumed to flow fromthe environment through a series of very brief sensory memories, that are perhaps bestregarded as part of the perceptual system, into a limited capacity short-term store. Theyproposed that the longer an item resides in this store, the greater the probability of its transferto LTM. Amnesic patients were assumed to have a deficit in the LTM system, and STMpatients in the short-term store.The Essential Handbook of Memory Disorders for Clinicians. Edited by A.D. Baddeley, M.D. Kopelman and B.A. Wilson.C 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN 0-470-09141-X.2 A.D. BADDELEYEnvironmentalinputSensory registersVisualAuditoryShort-term store(STS)Temporaryworking memoryLong-term store(LTS)Permanentmemory storeControl processes:RehearsalCodingDecisionRetrieval strategiesResponse outputHapticFigure 1.1 The model of human memory proposed by Atkinson & Shiffrin. Reproduced fromAtkinson & Shiffrin (1968)By the early 1970s, itwas clear that the model had encountered at least two problems. Thefirst of these concerned the learning assumption. Evidence suggested that merely holdingan item in STM did not guarantee learning. Much more important was the processing thatthe item underwent. This is emphasized in the levels-of-processing framework proposed byCraik&Lockhart (1972). They suggested that probability of subsequent recall or recognitionwas a direct function of the depth to which an item was processed. Hence, if the subjectmerely noted the visual characteristics of a word, for example whether it was in upperor lower case, little learning would follow. Slightly more would be remembered if theword were also processed acoustically by deciding, for example, whether it rhymed witha specified target word. By far the best recall, however, followed semantic processing, inwhich the subject made a judgement about the meaning of the word, or perhaps related itto a specified sentence, or to his/her own experience.THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MEMORY 3This levels of processing effect has been replicated many times, and although the specificinterpretation proposed is not universally accepted, there is no doubt that a word or experiencethat is processed in a deep way that elaborates the experience and links it with priorknowledge, is likely to be far better retained than one that receives only cursory analysis.The effect also occurs in the case of patients with memory deficits, making it a potentiallyuseful discovery for those interested in memory rehabilitation, although it is important toremember that cognitive impairment may hinder the processes necessary for such elaboration.Indeed, it was at one point suggested that failure to elaborate might be at the root ofthe classic amnesic syndrome, although further investigation showed this was not the case(see Baddeley, 1997, for further discussion).A second problem for the Atkinson & Shiffrin model was presented by the data on STMpatients that had initially appeared to support it. Although such patients argued strongly fora dissociation between LTM and STM, the Atkinson & Shiffrin model assumed that STMwas necessary, indeed crucial, for long-term learning, and indeed for many other cognitiveactivities. In fact, STM patients appeared to have normal LTM, and with one or two minorexceptions, such as working out change while shopping, had very few everday cognitiveproblems.This issue was tackled by Baddeley & Hitch (1974), who were explicitly concerned withthe relationship between STM and LTM. A series of experiments attempted to block STMin normal subjects by requiring them to recite digit sequences while performing other tasks,such as learning, reasoning or comprehending, that were assumed to depend crucially uponSTM. Decrement occurred, with the impairment increasing with the length of the digitsequence that was being retained, suggesting that STM and LTMdid interact. However, theeffect was far from dramatic, again calling into question the standard model. Baddeley &Hitch proposed that the concept of a simple unitary STM be replaced by a more complexsystem which they termed “working memory”, so as to emphasize its functional importancein cognitive processing. The model they proposed is shown in Figure 1.2.Working memory is assumed to comprise an attentional controller, the central executive,assisted by two subsidiary systems, the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad.The phonological (or articulatory) loop is assumed to comprise a store that holds memorytraces for a couple of seconds, combined with a subvocal rehearsal process. This is capableof maintaining the items in memory using subvocal speech, which can also be used toconvert nameable but visually presented stimuli, such as letters orwords, into a phonologicalcode. STM patients were assumed to have a deficit in this system, whereas the remainderof working memory was assumed to be spared (Vallar & Baddeley, 1984). Subsequentresearch, based on STM patients, normal children and adults, and children with specificlanguage impairment, suggest that the phonological loop system may have evolved for thepurpose of language acquisition (Baddeley et al., 1998). A more detailed account of thissystem and its breakdown is given by Vallar & Papagno (2002).CentralexecutivePhonologicalloopVisuospatialsketch-padFigure 1.2 The Baddeley & Hitch model of working memory. Reproduced from Baddeley &Hitch (1974)4 A.D. BADDELEYThe visuospatial sketchpad (or scratchpad) is assumed to allowthe temporary storage andmanipulation of visual and spatial information. Its function can be disrupted by concurrentvisuospatial activity and, as in the case of the phonological loop, our understanding hasbeen advanced by the study of neuropsychological patients. More specifically, there appearto be separate visual and spatial components, which may be differentially disrupted. A moredetailed account of this system and the relevant neuropsychological evidence is given byDella Sala & Logie (2002).The third component of the model, the central executive,was assumed to provide an attentionalcontrol system, both for the subsystems of working memory and for other activities.Baddeley (1986) suggested that a good account of it might be provided by the supervisoryattentional system (SAS) proposed by Norman & Shallice (1986) to account for the attentionalcontrol of action. They assume that much activity is controlled by well-learned habitsand schemata, guided by environmental cues. Novel actions that were needed to respondto unexpected situations, however, depended upon the intervention of the limited-capacitySAS. This was assumed to be capable of overriding habits so as to allow novel actions inresponse to new challenges. Slips of action, such as driving to the office rather than the supermarketon a Saturday morning, were attributed to the failure of the SAS to override suchhabits. The problems in action control shown by patients with frontal lobe damage werealso attributed to failure of the SAS; hence, perseverative activity might reflect the failureof the SAS to break away from the domination of action by environmental cues (Shallice,1988).Both Shallice himself and others have extended their account to include a range of potentiallyseparable executive processes, hence providing an account of the range of differingdeficits that may occur in patients with frontal lobe damage (Baddeley, 1996; Duncan, 1996;Shallice & Burgess, 1996). Given the far from straightforward mapping of anatomical locationonto cognitive function, Baddeley & Wilson (1988) suggested that the term “frontallobe syndrome” be replaced by the more functional term, “dysexecutive syndrome”. For arecent review of this area, see Roberts et al. (1998) and Stuss & Knight (2002).The implications of frontal lobe function and executive deficit for the functioning ofmemory are substantial, since the executive

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

BAB 1
The Psychology of Memory
Alan D. Baddeley
Departemen Psikologi, University of York, Inggris
Dalam bab ini saya akan mencoba untuk memberikan gambaran singkat tentang konsep dan teknik yang
paling banyak digunakan dalam psikologi memori. Meskipun mungkin tidak tampak
kasus dari sampling literatur, sebenarnya ada banyak kesepakatan seperti apa
merupakan psikologi memori, sebagian besar dikembangkan melalui interaksi dari
studi memori yang normal di laboratorium dan kerusakan pada pasien kerusakan otak.
Sebuah account agak lebih rinci dapat ditemukan di Parkin & Leng (1993) dan Baddeley
(1999), sementara overviewis lebih luas diberikan oleh Baddeley (1997), dan dalam berbagai
bab terdiri dari Handbook of Memory (Tulving & Craik, 2000).
fraksionasi MEMORY
Konsep memori manusia sebagai fakultas kesatuan mulai serius terkikis pada
tahun 1960 dengan usulan bahwa memori jangka panjang (LTM) dan memori jangka pendek (STM)
merupakan sistem yang terpisah. Di antara bukti kuat untuk pemisahan ini adalah
kontras antara dua jenis pasien neuropsikologi. Pasien dengan amnesia klasik
sindrom, biasanya terkait dengan kerusakan pada lobus temporal dan hippocampi, muncul
untuk memiliki masalah yang cukup umum dalam belajar dan mengingat materi baru, apakah lisan
atau visual (Milner, 1966). Mereka, bagaimanapun, tampaknya memiliki memori jangka pendek yang normal
(STM), yang diukur misalnya dengan rentang angka, kemampuan untuk mendengar dan segera ulangi
kembali urutan asing angka. Shallice & Warrington (1970) mengidentifikasi persis
pola kebalikan dari defisit pada pasien dengan kerusakan kawasan perisylvian dari kiri
belahan. Pasien tersebut memiliki rentang digit terbatas pada satu atau dua, tapi ternyata biasa
LTM. Pada 1960-an, bukti tampaknya menunjuk dengan jelas untuk dua komponen
sistem memori. Gambar 1.1 menunjukkan representasi sistem tersebut dari berpengaruh
model waktu, yang dari Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968). Informasi diasumsikan mengalir dari
lingkungan melalui serangkaian kenangan sensorik yang sangat singkat, yang mungkin paling
dianggap sebagai bagian dari sistem perseptual, ke toko jangka pendek kapasitas terbatas. Mereka
mengusulkan bahwa semakin lama item berada di toko ini, semakin besar kemungkinan transfer
ke LTM. Pasien amnesia yang diasumsikan memiliki defisit dalam sistem LTM, dan STM
pasien di toko jangka pendek.
The Handbook Penting Gangguan Memory untuk Dokter. Disunting oleh AD Baddeley, MD Kopelman dan BA Wilson.
C?
2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd ISBN 0-470-09141-X.
2 AD Baddeley
Lingkungan
masukan
register Sensory
Visual
Auditory
toko jangka pendek
(STS)
sementara
memori kerja
panjang Toko-istilah
(LTS)
Permanent
toko memori
Pengendalian proses:
Rehearsal
Coding
Keputusan
strategi Retrieval
Respon keluaran
Haptic
Gambar 1.1 Model memori manusia diusulkan oleh Atkinson & Shiffrin. Direproduksi dari
Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968)
Pada awal 1970-an, itwas jelas bahwa model telah mengalami setidaknya dua masalah. The
pertama ini menyangkut asumsi pembelajaran. Bukti menunjukkan bahwa hanya memegang
item di STM tidak menjamin pembelajaran. Jauh lebih penting adalah proses yang
item menjalani. Hal ini ditekankan dalam tingkat-of-pengolahan kerangka yang diusulkan oleh
Craik & Lockhart (1972). Mereka menyarankan bahwa kemungkinan recall berikutnya atau pengakuan
adalah fungsi langsung dari kedalaman yang item diproses. Oleh karena itu, jika subjek
hanya mencatat karakteristik visual dari sebuah kata, misalnya apakah itu di atas
kasus atau lebih rendah, sedikit belajar akan mengikuti. Sedikit lebih akan diingat jika
kata juga diproses secara akustik dengan memutuskan, misalnya, apakah itu berirama dengan
kata target yang ditentukan. Sejauh recall terbaik, bagaimanapun, diikuti pengolahan semantik, di
mana subjek membuat penilaian tentang arti kata, atau mungkin terkait itu
untuk kalimat tertentu, atau untuk / pengalamannya sendiri nya.
PSIKOLOGI MEMORY 3
tingkat ini efek pengolahan telah direplikasi berkali-kali, dan meskipun spesifik
penafsiran yang diusulkan tidak diterima secara universal, tidak ada keraguan bahwa sebuah kata atau pengalaman
yang diolah dengan cara yang mendalam yang menguraikan pengalaman dan menghubungkannya dengan sebelum
pengetahuan, cenderung akan jauh lebih baik dipertahankan dari satu yang hanya menerima analisis sepintas.
Efeknya juga terjadi dalam kasus pasien dengan defisit memori, sehingga berpotensi
penemuan yang berguna bagi mereka yang tertarik dalam rehabilitasi memori, meskipun penting untuk
diingat bahwa penurunan kognitif dapat menghalangi proses yang diperlukan untuk elaborasi tersebut.
Memang, itu pada satu titik menyarankan bahwa kegagalan untuk menguraikan mungkin menjadi akar dari
sindrom amnesia klasik, meskipun penyelidikan lebih lanjut menunjukkan ini tidak terjadi
(lihat Baddeley 1997, untuk pembahasan lebih lanjut).
A Masalah kedua untuk model Atkinson & Shiffrin disajikan oleh data STM
pasien yang awalnya muncul untuk mendukungnya. Meskipun pasien tersebut bersikeras untuk
sebuah pemisahan antara LTM dan STM, model Atkinson & Shiffrin diasumsikan bahwa STM
itu perlu, memang penting, untuk belajar jangka panjang, dan memang selama bertahun kognitif lainnya
kegiatan. Bahkan, pasien STM ternyata memiliki LTM normal, dan dengan satu atau dua kecil
pengecualian, seperti bekerja keluar perubahan saat berbelanja, memiliki sangat sedikit everday kognitif
masalah.
Masalah ini ditangani oleh Baddeley & Hitch (1974), yang secara eksplisit peduli dengan
hubungan antara STM dan LTM. Serangkaian percobaan berusaha untuk memblokir STM
di subjek normal dengan mengharuskan mereka untuk membaca urutan angka saat melakukan tugas-tugas lain,
seperti belajar, penalaran atau memahami, yang diasumsikan sangat bergantung pada
STM. Penurunan terjadi, dengan gangguan peningkatan dengan panjang digit
urutan yang sedang ditahan, menunjukkan bahwa STM dan LTMdid berinteraksi. Namun,
efek jauh dari dramatis, lagi mempertanyakan model standar. Baddeley &
Hitch mengusulkan bahwa konsep STM kesatuan sederhana diganti dengan yang lebih kompleks
sistem yang mereka sebut "memori kerja", sehingga untuk menekankan pentingnya fungsional
dalam pengolahan kognitif. Model mereka mengusulkan ditunjukkan pada Gambar 1.2.
memori Kerja diasumsikan terdiri controller atensi, eksekutif pusat,
dibantu oleh dua sistem anak, loop fonologi dan sketsa visuospatial.
The fonologi (atau artikulasi) loop diasumsikan terdiri dari toko yang memegang memori
jejak selama beberapa detik, dikombinasikan dengan proses latihan subvocal. Ini mampu
menjaga item dalam memori menggunakan pidato subvocal, yang juga dapat digunakan untuk
mengkonversi nameable tetapi disajikan secara visual rangsangan, seperti surat orwords, menjadi fonologis
kode. Pasien STM diasumsikan memiliki defisit dalam sistem ini, sedangkan sisanya
dari memori kerja diasumsikan terhindar (Vallar & Baddeley, 1984). Selanjutnya
penelitian, berdasarkan pasien STM, anak-anak normal dan orang dewasa, dan anak-anak dengan spesifik
gangguan bahasa, menunjukkan bahwa sistem loop fonologi mungkin telah berevolusi untuk
tujuan akuisisi bahasa (Baddeley et al., 1998). Sebuah account yang lebih rinci dari ini
sistem dan kerusakan yang diberikan oleh Vallar & Papagno (2002).
Central
eksekutif
fonologis
lingkaran
visuospatial
sketsa-pad
Gambar 1.2 Baddeley & Hitch model memori kerja. Direproduksi dari Baddeley &
Hitch (1974)
4 AD Baddeley
The sketsa visuospatial (atau penggaris) diasumsikan allowthe penyimpanan sementara dan
manipulasi informasi visual dan spasial. Fungsinya dapat terganggu oleh bersamaan
aktivitas visuospatial dan, seperti dalam kasus loop fonologi, pemahaman kita telah
dikemukakan oleh studi pasien neuropsikologi. Lebih khusus, ada muncul
menjadi komponen visual dan spasial terpisah, yang dapat terganggu berbeda-beda. Yang lebih
terperinci tentang sistem ini dan bukti neuropsikologi yang relevan diberikan oleh
Della Sala & Logie (2002).
Komponen ketiga dari model, eksekutif pusat, diasumsikan untuk memberikan atensi
sistem kontrol, baik untuk subsistem dari memori kerja dan untuk kegiatan lainnya.
Baddeley (1986) menyatakan bahwa laporan yang baik dari itu mungkin diberikan oleh pengawas
sistem attentional (SAS) yang diusulkan oleh Norman & Shallice (1986) untuk menjelaskan attentional
kontrol tindakan. Mereka menganggap bahwa banyak kegiatan dikendalikan oleh kebiasaan baik belajar
dan schemata, dipandu oleh isyarat lingkungan. Tindakan Novel yang diperlukan untuk menanggapi
situasi tak terduga, bagaimanapun, tergantung pada intervensi terbatas kapasitas
SAS. Hal ini diasumsikan mampu kebiasaan utama sehingga memungkinkan tindakan baru dalam
merespon tantangan baru. Slip tindakan, seperti mengemudi ke kantor daripada supermarket
pada hari Sabtu pagi, yang dikaitkan dengan kegagalan SAS untuk mengesampingkan seperti
kebiasaan. Masalah dalam kontrol tindakan yang ditunjukkan oleh pasien dengan kerusakan lobus frontal yang
juga dikaitkan dengan kegagalan SAS; oleh karena itu, aktivitas perseverative mungkin mencerminkan kegagalan
dari SAS untuk melepaskan diri dari dominasi tindakan dengan isyarat lingkungan (Shallice,
1988).
Kedua Shallice dirinya dan orang lain telah menambah account mereka untuk menyertakan berbagai berpotensi
proses eksekutif dipisahkan, maka memberikan rekening dari berbagai berbeda
defisit yang mungkin terjadi pada pasien dengan kerusakan lobus frontal (Baddeley, 1996; Duncan, 1996;
Shallice & Burgess, 1996). Mengingat jauh dari pemetaan langsung dari lokasi anatomi
ke fungsi kognitif, Baddeley & Wilson (1988) mengemukakan bahwa istilah "frontal
lobe syndrome "diganti dengan istilah yang lebih fungsional," sindrom dysexecutive ". Untuk
review terbaru dari daerah ini, lihat Roberts et al. (1998) dan Stuss & Ksatria (2002).
Implikasi fungsi lobus frontal dan defisit eksekutif untuk fungsi
memori yang cukup besar, karena eksekutif