1. Evaluating of the working memory model
Thanks to my visuo-spatial sketchpad I have made it back to my CASTLE!!!

3. CASTLES Evidence comes from..
Baddeley (74) who found on his dual performance tasks, that when two simultaneously performed tasks use the same component of working memory, performance on those tasks suffers
BUT…when two tasks involve different parts of working memory, performance on those tasks do not suffer
These findings support the existence of the different sub-components of working memory as proposed by the model

4. CASTLES Supporting evidence comes from…..
There is evidence from cognitive-neurological studies on patients with brain damage which supports the working memory model
Shallice & Warrington (70) found that patient KF had difficulties recalling auditory information from STM but not visual information
This suggests that his damage mainly affected the phonological loop as he appeared to be able to use the visuo-spatial sketch pad
This also supports the idea of multiple components to STM, as proposed by the working memory model

5. CASTLES Supporting evidence also comes from…..fMRI scans
Bunge et al (2000) found that when Ppts were doing a dual-task, fMRI scans showed significantly more activation
This shows that the increased attentional demands of the two simultaneous tasks increased brain activity
This provides support for the proposed role of the central executive as the aspect which directs attention and allocates resources

6. CASTLES
However there are a number of limitations associated with studies of patients with brain damage
Most studies of brain damage are case studies; whilst case studies provide a lot of detail, the subjects may have unique characteristics which mean that they are not representative of anyone else except themselves
It is also not possible to make before and after comparisons of their memory deficits
The trauma of the brain injury may have resulted in numerous changes in the brain and therefore behaviour
These limitations undermine the extent to which we can rely on studies of patients with brain damage to evaluate the working memory model

7. CASTLES
It could be argued that the role of the CE is a little vague…What exactly is ‘directing attention’ and ‘allocating resources’?
It is possible that the CE, like the other aspects of the model, is also not unitary
Conflicting evidence comes from Eslinger & Damasio (1985) whose patient EVR performed well on reasoning tasks but not on problem-solving tasks
given that both tasks would involve the CE, this suggests that the CE has sub-components involved with each task respectively – there is more research to do therefore!

8. CASTLES ..useful…Application
The insights from the working memory model can be used in psychopathology
Park et al (1999) has suggested that working memory deficits can be used to differentiate between ‘normal’ patients, and those with schizophrenia
If this is true, it could be used as a diagnostic tool
However, it could be that working memory deficits occur in other forms of psychopathology also (eg. anxiety disorders), and that working memory abnormalities may not necessarily indicate schizophrenia but a more generic possibility of mental illness

9. Describe and evaluate the working memory model (12)
How to evaluate
Describe and evaluate the working memory model (12)