Jac.m.a.m. Oppers wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:23:15 +0200, "Christian Stapfer"
> <chstapfer at nospam.bluewin.ch> wrote:
>> >jste wrote:
> >> Encyclopædia Britannica
> >> Memory is one of the most widely studied cognitive functions,
> >> and a number of different aspects of memory are recognized.
> >> The labels short-term memory, primary memory, and working
> >> memory refer to the temporary storage of information that
> >> is necessary for the performance of many cognitive tasks.
> >> In order to understand this sentence, for example, a reader
> >> must maintain the first half of the sentence in working
> >> memory while reading the second half. This working memory
> >> has been graphically described as the memory one uses to
> >> hold a telephone number in mind after looking it up in a
> >> directory and while dialing. The capacity of working memory
> >> is limited, and it decays if not rehearsed.
> >>
> >> Simple but adequate I think
> >
> >From reading "Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition"
> >(Walter Kintsch, 1998) I get the impression that the
> >above definition is not 'adequate', and that a truly
> >adequate definition of 'working memory' is not likely
> >to be all that simple.
> > Neither the traditionally assumed severe capacity
> >limits (7 +/- 2), nor the idea of moving content from
> >long-term memory to short-term ('working') memory and
> >back, seem to be generally valid.
> > Kintsch uses the terms 'short-term working memory'
> >(ST-WM) and 'long-term working memory' (LT-WM), as well
> >as the idea of 'retrieval structures' in order to theorize
> >the role of 'working memory' in text understanding.
> >
> >Christian Stapfer
>> I understand. And, to elaborate, of course, the viewpoint of
> biobehavioral selectionism, I get the impression, memory is being
> pictured by implicitly present build-in cooks of the month, agents,
> to graphically describe its use in a lot of research articles filling
> textbooks. So, I prefer to define your *current sensitivities* for SR-
> relations and SS-complexes to be your "working memory", simply
> summarized as *you* being "in charge". That is all.
If this is intended as a parody of my posting, or, perhaps,
a criticism of it, I simply don't get the point you want to
make. - Maybe there is no point?
Christian Stapfer
